Having close friends that are homosexual

[Stylteralmaldo]

This idea that we hold these profoundly important beliefs yet we can deconstruct and adapt them to specific situations is a serious problem for all Catholics.

Everything in life is situational especially when we are confronted with moral dilemmas such as this.

blessedtoo:

This thread also illustrates a severe lack of understanding of the meaning of marriage. If Catholics are actually considering the secular notion that a gay “marriage” is equal in validity to traditional marriage, then the problem runs much deeper than gay or straight.

Since you quoted me, I presume you are referring to my lack of understanding of the Catholic understanding of marriage? Certainly, a “gay” marriage is not a marriage at all. Homosexuals can not by definition be unitive and procreative.

blessedtoo:

If Catholics are simply “indulging” this notion of gay marriage for the sake of pleasing their homosexual friends and family, I consider that quite condescending.

I sure hope Catholics aren’t indulging this notion for the sake of pleasing homosexual persons we know whether related or not. God needs to come first in any decision we make. The Catholic Church is there to help us make that decision.

blessedtoo:

If we are ambiguous about the issue of homosexuality, we will be unclear about gay marriage. If we are clear on the former, the latter will cause pain and heartache perhaps, but NOT confusion.

Well, unlike some Protestant faiths which unambigously condemns not only the homosexual act, lifestyle, and proclivity towards homosexuality, the Catholic Church does not condemn the proclivity, but only the act and lifestyle.

The fact that the Catholic Church does not condemn the proclivity towards homosexuality, that does create ambiguity in homosexual matters.

The ambiguity is manifested in how to properly apply the following standard (taken from the Catechism) (bolded for emphasis):

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

By deciding whether or not to attend, we need to take into consideration the sensitivity of the matter. And whatever is decided, it must be done with respect and compassion. There may be situations where deciding not to go may be seen as unjust discrimination. You can’t just say “I’m not going to this sham wedding and it’s up to the homosexual person to understand and if he doesn’t too bad”.

 

[estesbob]

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

".

The Church is refering here to those who have same sex attraction. The next line says :

[2359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

---

As to those who are actually enageing in honosexual behavior the Church says this:

**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved.
**

 

[fix]

By deciding whether or not to attend, we need to take into consideration the sensitivity of the matter. And whatever is decided, it must be done with respect and compassion. There may be situations where deciding not to go may be seen as unjust discrimination. You can’t just say “I’m not going to this sham wedding and it’s up to the homosexual person to understand and if he doesn’t too bad”.

Certainly, we must always be charitable in our explanations. I would slightly disgaree with you in that the decision should be not to go, unless there is some pressing need that includes explaining that the attendee in no way supports the actions of the people involved.

 

[fix]

But, if she did invite me, and I went, how could I POSSIBLY be sending a consistent message by participating in something, however indirectly, that I am so clearly not in agreement with? How odd would that be?

I think that is a strong point.

I accept in some cases “keeping the lines of communication open” may be important to future relationships. But, how does one go to a “happy” occasion and at the same time reject the entire premise?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…how does one go to a “happy” occasion and at the same time reject the entire premise?

That is the moral dilemma in a nutshell.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And we never learn a thing by obstinately insisting we’re right, either.

But you see I am not claiming to be right. I am claiming that I find no logical consistency in your argument.

If by “extreme” you mean “follows the teachings of the Church,” then yes, I agree. You see, I prefer advice that is “extreme” (i.e., in line with Church teaching) as opposed to “wrong.”

It may be a shock to you but this person is not the magisterium. It may in fact be your opinion that they correctly state church teaching. If so, then by all means follow it. I certainly do not, and I don’t find the Vatican siting him as authority. A very large majority of Catholics it seems also do not find his opinions authoritative. You continue to conclude that because you find something “right” it is by definition right. In that you may be right, but then again, you may well be wrong.

Then please do send me their e-mail addresses so I may get their perspectives as well. I’m interested to know why they feel it’s acceptable to celebrate invalid unions, given Church teaching on this matter.

You must be kidding. You have made up your mind. What would be the point? I realize what you are attempting. It is hardly new. As I said, you confuse what you have decided is church teaching is not necessarily so. I in no way claim you are wrong, only your continued statement that it is church teaching, based on some laity who has a website and proports to give doctrinal statements.

At any rate, I’d rather err on the side of following Jesus’ teachings than err on the side of making people happy or keeping peace in my family.

You are determined it seems not to get the point of this at all. and I’m inclined to think you are doing so deliberately. That you cannot see the point is something I simply don’t believe. I’ve stateed it innumerable times. It must mean that you need to believe that you have to be right. So be it.

Homosexual behavior used to be criminal, as well. Did it magically become morally acceptable once civil law decreed it acceptable?

If you have evidence that the laws were changed while still maintaining that the act was immoral, please give forth. Your assuming a fact not in evidence.

I think we have explored this issue enough. Since you are unwilling the consider the mere possibility that your source may be wrong and can point me to no source from the Vatican itself, I consider the matter closed. Thanks for the discussion. It is always fascinating to see how others interpret the faith.

 

[SirOscar]

I accept in some cases “keeping the lines of communication open” may be important to future relationships. But, how does one go to a “happy” occasion and at the same time reject the entire premise?

I am going to try to answer your question as best I can, and I will warn that you might not like what I will say.

My family was raised as JWs. JWs isolate themselves from the world for a variety of reasons, but one of them is “bad association spoils useful habits” so they live by that and only befriend and associate with other JWs. Everyone else in the world might tempt you to sin and lead you astray. I shut my brother out because of his sin, shut some of my JWs friends out because of their sins. All in the name of sin did I sever those relationships. What lesson is gained in that? What message, did those that I closed relationships with, receive except “I am holier than you …you lowly sinner”

After joining this forum, and trying to search out the Catholic teachings, I find that some Catholics are just as “righteous” as JWs. These people are so focused on “sin” and why, how, who, when, where the sin takes place and one is better off not associating with them. To be quite frank, it is comparative to JWs. To me JWs and Catholicism are one in the same in their doctrines of sin. Which is not necessarily bad, but some become self-righteous and cannot see their own sin. I cannot tolerate this.

Last I checked we are all sinners, in need of God’s grace, in need of God’s mercy, in need of forgiveness, in need of unconditional love.

When I left the JWs, I had no one. No friends, no family, no support. I had to make my way the best I could…I ended up choosing a sinful lifestyle and choosing a mortal sin at one point in my life. During this time, I had a Baptist friend who I knew was willing to help me. Every time we were together, all she kept pointing out was my sin. She preached, preached, preached the evils of sin and how I was going to hell if I did not repent and accept Jesus as my savior…It was the biggest turn off…It pushed me further away from God than you can ever imagine.

Yes, my brother is living a gay lifestyle, and I will not shut him out because of his sin. I will love him, I will associate with him, I will embrace him. It is only by this action, that when he is receptive to God’s Grace and has a spiritual awakening, will he have some one to help him along. I will not sever the ties because of my religious convictions. That does more harm than good from my experience. I will love him unconditionally and pray for God to have mercy upon him and guide him along. I will not brow beat him to death and constantly preach, preach, preach to him of his sinful lifestyle…I know it doesn’t work…

So Yes, even though I don’t approve of the gay lifestyle, I will go to his wedding with a humble spirit, and only hope he will come to me when he is ready. I will not risk severing ties. It is more important to remain in his life, as far as I am concerned. This is why I would choose to go

I

 

[wanner47]

But you see I am not claiming to be right. I am claiming that I find no logical consistency in your argument.

You’ll never learn a thing by deliberately being obtuse, either.

It may be a shock to you but this person is not the magisterium.

True, but he has never said anything that, to my knowledge, is contrary to magisterial teaching. He’s certainly more learned about the Catholic Church than, say, you are.

It may in fact be your opinion that they correctly state church teaching. If so, then by all means follow it. I certainly do not, and I don’t find the Vatican siting him as authority.

I don’t see the Vatican saying, “Don’t listen to him,” either. In fact, Catholic Answers has been praised by many higher-ups in the Vatican echelon.

A very large majority of Catholics it seems also do not find his opinions authoritative.

First, where you do get this information from?

Secondly, it’s a good thing I don’t form my conscience based on what a “large majority of Catholics” think. As I’ve said before, truth is not determined by majority vote.

You continue to conclude that because you find something “right” it is by definition right. In that you may be right, but then again, you may well be wrong.

I conclude something is “right” because I’ve done my research and worked through the problem using logic and reasoning. Of course I consider myself right, just as you consider yourself right that I’m wrong.

You must be kidding. You have made up your mind. What would be the point?

How else am I to learn more about the situation without encountering different perspectives from people who are allegedly faithful Catholics?

I realize what you are attempting. It is hardly new.

And what would that be?

As I said, you confuse what you have decided is church teaching is not necessarily so. I in no way claim you are wrong, only your continued statement that it is church teaching, based on some laity who has a website and proports to give doctrinal statements.

Jimmy Akin doesn’t “purport to give doctrinal statements.” Furthermore, it’s not just Akin’s site that I used when making my decision. See one of my earlier posts. I spoke to a very learned and respected priest in my diocese, I spoke to my father’s Lutheran pastor, I read many documents on various Catholic websites, including the Vatican’s, in addition to the catechism.

You are determined it seems not to get the point of this at all. and I’m inclined to think you are doing so deliberately. That you cannot see the point is something I simply don’t believe. I’ve stateed it innumerable times. It must mean that you need to believe that you have to be right. So be it.

I could say the exact same thing in reference to you.

If you have evidence that the laws were changed while still maintaining that the act was immoral, please give forth. Your assuming a fact not in evidence.

Your stance is that you oppose pedophilia and bestiality because they’re criminal acts. Would you still oppose these if they became legal acts? If not, then your judgment is not based on morality, but rather civil law, and that has no application to our current discussion. If so, then your comment that homosexuality is just because it is legal makes no sense.

I think we have explored this issue enough. Since you are unwilling the consider the mere possibility that your source may be wrong and can point me to no source from the Vatican itself, I consider the matter closed. Thanks for the discussion. It is always fascinating to see how others interpret the faith.

Let me translate: “I’m frustrated because I can no longer refute your logic, so I’m going to pretend to give up in frustration in order to save face.”

The source from the Vatican has already been posted, btw, but here it is again.

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.

SOURCE:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1868.htm

 

[Predikant]

You can read about chastity and why it must be kept to enter Heaven, (also in marriage, it is only allowed for procreation, if you want no children, then you must live in chastity),

These words of God are accepted by the Church as infallible truth, this was ruled 700 years ago. Back then the Church had the same position as said in these words of God, if the Church today - in the end of times, when faith would be totally lost and people lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasures, rather then lovers of God and lovers of virtue, as prophesied by Christ, - teach different then what is said here by God, then guess who is wrong and are fulfillment of end time prophecy, and who should be followed and trusted, as all Saints of God teach the same.

www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 26
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 9
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 13
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 16

 

[estesbob]

You can read about chastity and why it must be kept to enter Heaven, (also in marriage, it is only allowed for procreation, if you want no children, then you must live in chastity),

These words of God are accepted by the Church as infallible truth, this was ruled 700 years ago. Back then the Church had the same position as said in these words of God, if the Church today - in the end of times, when faith would be totally lost and people lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasures, rather then lovers of God and lovers of virtue, as prophesied by Christ, - teach different then what is said here by God, then guess who is wrong and are fulfillment of end time prophecy, and who should be followed and trusted, as all Saints of God teach the same.

www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 26
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 9
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 13
www.saintbirgitta.com - book 1, chapter 16

When are you going to post the proof that St Brigitta’s writings have been proclaimed by the Church as infallible?

 

[blessedtoo]

I am going to try to answer your question as best I can, and I will warn that you might not like what I will say.

My family was raised as JWs. JWs isolate themselves from the world for a variety of reasons, but one of them is “bad association spoils useful habits” so they live by that and only befriend and associate with other JWs. Everyone else in the world might tempt you to sin and lead you astray. I shut my brother out because of his sin, shut some of my JWs friends out because of their sins. All in the name of sin did I sever those relationships. What lesson is gained in that? What message, did those that I closed relationships with, receive except “I am holier than you …you lowly sinner”

After joining this forum, and trying to search out the Catholic teachings, I find that some Catholics are just as “righteous” as JWs. These people are so focused on “sin” and why, how, who, when, where the sin takes place and one is better off not associating with them. To be quite frank, it is comparative to JWs. To me JWs and Catholicism are one in the same in their doctrines of sin. Which is not necessarily bad, but some become self-righteous and cannot see their own sin. I cannot tolerate this.

Last I checked we are all sinners, in need of God’s grace, in need of God’s mercy, in need of forgiveness, in need of unconditional love.

When I left the JWs, I had no one. No friends, no family, no support. I had to make my way the best I could…I ended up choosing a sinful lifestyle and choosing a mortal sin at one point in my life. During this time, I had a Baptist friend who I knew was willing to help me. Every time we were together, all she kept pointing out was my sin. She preached, preached, preached the evils of sin and how I was going to hell if I did not repent and accept Jesus as my savior…It was the biggest turn off…It pushed me further away from God than you can ever imagine.

Yes, my brother is living a gay lifestyle, and I will not shut him out because of his sin. I will love him, I will associate with him, I will embrace him. It is only by this action, that when he is receptive to God’s Grace and has a spiritual awakening, will he have some one to help him along. I will not sever the ties because of my religious convictions. That does more harm than good from my experience. I will love him unconditionally and pray for God to have mercy upon him and guide him along. I will not brow beat him to death and constantly preach, preach, preach to him of his sinful lifestyle…I know it doesn’t work…

So Yes, even though I don’t approve of the gay lifestyle, I will go to his wedding with a humble spirit, and only hope he will come to me when he is ready. I will not risk severing ties. It is more important to remain in his life, as far as I am concerned. This is why I would choose to go

I

I completely understand what you are saying here and agree - “shunning sinners” to save our own righteousness is for naught and is certainly not a teaching of the Catholic Church. I do not believe that declining an invitation to a gay wedding should be an attempt to “convert” the sinner or save our own souls by avoiding the taint of sin.

We are, however, called and commanded to put God first, above all others, no matter how painful, inconvenient or traumatic. It’s a hard teaching but it’s right there, in the first commandment. This belief system, that has been handed to us from God, is not something we can adhere to, support and defend only when it’s expedient. Our Lord’s example illustrates that pretty clearly.

While it will always be an abstraction for us here on earth to understand eternity, the truth still remains that it is God we are striving to please - not our earthly brothers and sisters. It is with Him we hope to spend eternal life. It is He who will be the final judge, not our friends and family here on earth. That’s kind of enough for me to at least be terribly uneasy with the idea of participating in something so clearly against my belief system.

I pray God gives us all the wisdom and courage to deal with these situations in our lives.

 

[fix]

I am going to try to answer your question as best I can, and I will warn that you might not like what I will say.

My family was raised as JWs. JWs isolate themselves from the world for a variety of reasons, but one of them is “bad association spoils useful habits” so they live by that and only befriend and associate with other JWs. Everyone else in the world might tempt you to sin and lead you astray. I shut my brother out because of his sin, shut some of my JWs friends out because of their sins. All in the name of sin did I sever those relationships. What lesson is gained in that? What message, did those that I closed relationships with, receive except “I am holier than you …you lowly sinner”

After joining this forum, and trying to search out the Catholic teachings, I find that some Catholics are just as “righteous” as JWs. These people are so focused on “sin” and why, how, who, when, where the sin takes place and one is better off not associating with them. To be quite frank, it is comparative to JWs. To me JWs and Catholicism are one in the same in their doctrines of sin. Which is not necessarily bad, but some become self-righteous and cannot see their own sin. I cannot tolerate this.

Last I checked we are all sinners, in need of God’s grace, in need of God’s mercy, in need of forgiveness, in need of unconditional love.

When I left the JWs, I had no one. No friends, no family, no support. I had to make my way the best I could…I ended up choosing a sinful lifestyle and choosing a mortal sin at one point in my life. During this time, I had a Baptist friend who I knew was willing to help me. Every time we were together, all she kept pointing out was my sin. She preached, preached, preached the evils of sin and how I was going to hell if I did not repent and accept Jesus as my savior…It was the biggest turn off…It pushed me further away from God than you can ever imagine.

Yes, my brother is living a gay lifestyle, and I will not shut him out because of his sin. I will love him, I will associate with him, I will embrace him. It is only by this action, that when he is receptive to God’s Grace and has a spiritual awakening, will he have some one to help him along. I will not sever the ties because of my religious convictions. That does more harm than good from my experience. I will love him unconditionally and pray for God to have mercy upon him and guide him along. I will not brow beat him to death and constantly preach, preach, preach to him of his sinful lifestyle…I know it doesn’t work…

So Yes, even though I don’t approve of the gay lifestyle, I will go to his wedding with a humble spirit, and only hope he will come to me when he is ready. I will not risk severing ties. It is more important to remain in his life, as far as I am concerned. This is why I would choose to go

Each case is different and I accept the uneasiness you present here. I think Blessedtoo makes good points.

It is not about shunning people. I asked how one could go and reject the entire premise so I would wonder what does one say at such an event when one is presented to the couple and a congratulations is expected? I have no answer and think it is quite a difficult situation.

Also, imo, I think a large part of the problem with all these moral issues is that as a culture we have come to a point where any display or talk of “sin”, no matter how loving, is immediately met with accuations of self righteousness, being a pharisee, pushing people away, etc.

It is almost as if we each look for a way to claim offense no matter how illegitmate. I am told the measure of love is sacrifice. That means that we place love of God above all else and that includes trying our best to avoid sin.

I think everyone here who reads this thread will pray for you and your family. I will recommend you to the Blessed Mother who never fails us.

God Bless.

 

[SirOscar]

Each case is different and I accept the uneasiness you present here. I think Blessedtoo makes good points.

It is not about shunning people. I asked how one could go and reject the entire premise so I would wonder what does one say at such an event when one is presented to the couple and a congratulations is expected? I have no answer and think it is quite a difficult situation.

Thank you Fix, It is very difficult for me to have a gay brother, and it will cause much internal conflict if I need to go to his wedding. I pray for him all the time that somehow he will come to know God’s Truth. To be quite honest, I would not pat him on the back and congratulate my brother. I would thank him for inviting me and I that I would wish him the best in his journey in life. And what is the best in this journey in life? God’s Truth.

Sometimes too, I need to reflect that perhaps my brother thinks he is not sinning. He is gay and is responding to a natural desire inside himself. How is that sinful in his eyes? This is why it is not good to make an issue of his sin & the constant preaching because if one does not believe he/she is sinning, you will get nowhere fast.

God’s Holy Spirit is what moves a person to change. I agree that God uses us to help each other along in the process, but I think it is when we do the least and accept that God is ultimately in control that we become most effective.

For instance an acquaintance of mine told me that I helped her to be more spiritual & closer to God. My comment to her was that I had no clue and that I could not take credit for how the Holy Spirit has moved her. We never talked religion, politics, morality or faith. Just day to day stuff of life and our work. I am still baffled.

Also, imo, I think a large part of the problem with all these moral issues is that as a culture we have come to a point where any display or talk of “sin”, no matter how loving, is immediately met with accuations of self righteousness, being a pharisee, pushing people away, etc.

It is almost as if we each look for a way to claim offense no matter how illegitmate. I am told the measure of love is sacrifice. That means that we place love of God above all else and that includes trying our best to avoid sin.

Yes, this is true to some degree. I guess my point is preaching to someone who doesn’t believe their actions are sinful is a waste of energy. Something needs to change within the soul of the person first and that ultimately comes God’s Holy Spirit, then and only then, will any council be receptive.

I think everyone here who reads this thread will pray for you and your family. I will recommend you to the Blessed Mother who never fails us.

God Bless.

Fix, thank you. Pray for my brother, pray for my family members that are still JWs. May they be enlightened with the Grace of God’s Holy Spirit to bring them to the fullness of His Truth.

And I can affirm with all certainty, our Blessed Mother has never failed me. I will always have a great love and devotion to her and I will continue to pray to her for help with all of my struggles.

 

[SirOscar]

We are, however, called and commanded to put God first, above all others, no matter how painful, inconvenient or traumatic. It’s a hard teaching but it’s right there, in the first commandment. This belief system, that has been handed to us from God, is not something we can adhere to, support and defend only when it’s expedient. Our Lord’s example illustrates that pretty clearly.

While it will always be an abstraction for us here on earth to understand eternity, the truth still remains that it is God we are striving to please - not our earthly brothers and sisters. It is with Him we hope to spend eternal life. It is He who will be the final judge, not our friends and family here on earth. That’s kind of enough for me to at least be terribly uneasy with the idea of participating in something so clearly against my belief system.

I pray God gives us all the wisdom and courage to deal with these situations in our lives.

Blessedtoo, Yes, it is a constant internal conflict of mine, and I pray for the wisdom & courage to do the right thing in God’s eyes. I am confident God will answer my prayers, when & if that time comes.

 

[SirOscar]

You guys are stuck in my head. I can’t seem to shake it, not a bad thing though.

Now, in the gospel of Matthew two times Jesus told the pharisees that "I demand mercy not sacrifice. The first was when Jesus was accused of eating with the sinners and tax collectors. Jesus said to them “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners’”

The second was in chapter 12 when the disciples of Jesus were picking grain to eat on the sabbath. Again Jesus says to the pharisees "If you knew what this meant, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.

What does it mean to you to when Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (I am not implying that you are like the Pharisees, so please take not offense) Just a discussion, OKAY DOKE? It must be a powerful message otherwise Jesus would not have rebuked the Pharisees twice.

 

[mangy_dog]

Lets see:

Having close friends that are homosexual.

Having close friends that are mormons or JW’s

Having close friends that are pro abortion

Having close friends that are atheists.

Having close friends that are santeros.

ad infinitum…ad nauseum.

Sooner or later its gonna come down to a confrontation of thoughts, beliefs, ideals, philosophies etc. And you might be caught off guard because of your friendship. You’ll say (or not say) the right or wrong thing and seem wishy, washy about your catholicism or at worst you’ll use some old cliché like, “as long as we’re all looking for God in our own way, its ok”.

You get the idea.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[urban-hermit]

You guys are stuck in my head. I can’t seem to shake it, not a bad thing though.

Now, in the gospel of Matthew two times Jesus told the pharisees that "I demand mercy not sacrifice. The first was when Jesus was accused of eating with the sinners and tax collectors. Jesus said to them “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners’”

The second was in chapter 12 when the disciples of Jesus were picking grain to eat on the sabbath. Again Jesus says to the pharisees "If you knew what this meant, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.

What does it mean to you to when Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (I am not implying that you are like the Pharisees, so please take not offense) Just a discussion, OKAY DOKE? It must be a powerful message otherwise Jesus would not have rebuked the Pharisees twice.

For my 2 cents on these passages, I think Jesus was talking about things that are not really comparable to a gay “wedding”.

I say this because I don’t think it would be showing mercy to go along with a gay “wedding”. While I could understand if you or anybody went, I feel that it would be a serious mistake. On a human level most everyone would prefer not to offend a close friend or relative. But we have a higher obligation sometimes. Going to that kind of ceremony would go against Jesus’ # 1 commandment (Love the Lord with all your heart,soul,mind & strength), because in other scriptures Jesus does equate loving Him with obeying Him. Attending such a ceremony would appear on the human level to be “merciful”, but in reality it would just make it harder for the gay people to see that sex is a holy and good thing only within certain parameters.

That to me is the important issue that we need to communicate to gay people - that sex has a specific meaning and purpose and when we mis-use it we suffer various consequences, one of which is a disdain for God and His clear communication to us regarding sex.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You’ll never learn a thing by deliberately being obtuse, either.

True, but he has never said anything that, to my knowledge, is contrary to magisterial teaching. He’s certainly more learned about the Catholic Church than, say, you are.

I don’t see the Vatican saying, “Don’t listen to him,” either. In fact, Catholic Answers has been praised by many higher-ups in the Vatican echelon.

First, where you do get this information from?

Secondly, it’s a good thing I don’t form my conscience based on what a “large majority of Catholics” think. As I’ve said before, truth is not determined by majority vote.

I conclude something is “right” because I’ve done my research and worked through the problem using logic and reasoning. Of course I consider myself right, just as you consider yourself right that I’m wrong.

How else am I to learn more about the situation without encountering different perspectives from people who are allegedly faithful Catholics?

And what would that be?

Jimmy Akin doesn’t “purport to give doctrinal statements.” Furthermore, it’s not just Akin’s site that I used when making my decision. See one of my earlier posts. I spoke to a very learned and respected priest in my diocese, I spoke to my father’s Lutheran pastor, I read many documents on various Catholic websites, including the Vatican’s, in addition to the catechism.

I could say the exact same thing in reference to you.

Your stance is that you oppose pedophilia and bestiality because they’re criminal acts. Would you still oppose these if they became legal acts? If not, then your judgment is not based on morality, but rather civil law, and that has no application to our current discussion. If so, then your comment that homosexuality is just because it is legal makes no sense.

Let me translate: “I’m frustrated because I can no longer refute your logic, so I’m going to pretend to give up in frustration in order to save face.”

The source from the Vatican has already been posted, btw, but here it is again.

It seems that the only way orthodox Catholics “win” arguments here is by claiming victory when the other side gives up the discussion based on continued obfuscation. I am done. Consider it your win if that pleases you. I’m not out to win, but learn things. I have learned a great deal from you believe it or not.

 

[wanner47]

It seems that the only way orthodox Catholics “win” arguments here is by claiming victory when the other side gives up the discussion based on continued obfuscation. I am done. Consider it your win if that pleases you. I’m not out to win, but learn things. I have learned a great deal from you believe it or not.

Likewise.

I did think of an analogy earlier today that may help you understand my reasoning.

Let’s say your sister robs a bank and asks you to drive the getaway car. Let’s say you refuse on the grounds that you feel robbing banks is immoral, even if she does not. Would you find it logical if she said, “Can’t you just drive the getaway car without condoning the crime?”

So, she robs the bank anyway, gets caught, and is sent to prison. If you go visit her in prison, does that mean that you condone her crime?

 

[estesbob]

Likewise.

I did think of an analogy earlier today that may help you understand my reasoning.

Let’s say your sister robs a bank and asks you to drive the getaway car. Let’s say you refuse on the grounds that you feel robbing banks is immoral, even if she does not. Would you find it logical if she said, “Can’t you just drive the getaway car without condoning the crime?”

So, she robs the bank anyway, gets caught, and is sent to prison. If you go visit her in prison, does that mean that you condone her crime?

It would be affirmimg that she desrves to be in jail.