Homosexual wedding

[Bookcat]

I am not calling christianity evil…I am calling those that hide behind Catholicism or Christianity evil when they do not consider the individual, family or situation but instead make blanket, black and white declarations of what they perceive to be God’s will or what they interpret to be the Church’s teaching.

Homosexuality may not be approved -under any circumstance *(see Catechism).

Love the persons --but love them in truth not contrary to the truth. To love without truth is to not love authentically.

Everyone is in need of God’s grace, everyone.

Yes --hence one needs to pray and one can do penance for them…seeking their true good. Not celebrate something that is always and everywhere objectively disordered.

To practice non-acceptance of the gay person and withhold Love is in no way loving them or those that care for them.

We have said one accepts the person --loves the persons - cares for the persons…but one cannot celebrate that which is contrary to that very love.

From the posts here it would appear that some would prefer to fight to save a murderer from the death penalty then show up in love for a son or daughter, brother or sister, that is choosing a same sex marriage. As Jesus says…we “strain out gnats and swallow camels!”

Jesus was NOT speaking of this kind of thing. He actually was quite serious about sin – “go and sin no more”. Attempting a gay marriage is not a gnat! Nor is celebrating such.

It is a huge camel.

 

[Bookcat]

Love requires relationship and participation. The OP and others here would prefer non-participation and separation from the wedding event (the very definition of Sin) as a way of telling someone they are loved or worse yet sending a message of judgement.

It is not something a Christian may approve of -let alone celebrate.

Love and Truth must go hand in hand. Love without truth is not love. And truth must be affirmed with love.

One tells the person they are loved -and one loves the person. But with authentic love. We do not judge the interior of their persons -

–but we may not approve of objectively disordered acts.

To do so would be contrary to loving them.

 

[Bookcat]

A great quote for us all to meditate on from time to time in terms of the current difficulties and confusion in the society we live in --and our response (to be applied to so many things in life):

"Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived.

Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way."

~ Pope Benedict XVI (Caritas in Veritate)

 

[Corki]

Lets see – I suppose if they tied me up and dragged me there…

I was thinking of a case where one might be a care-giver to an elderly relative who insisted on going to the “wedding”. The care giving duties **might **over-ride. But, yes, you really have to stretch your imagination to come up with a situation where you would not be culpable.

 

[tskrobacz]

Here’s another great quote worth considering:

In recent years and elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead. And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! (The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story.) When you lose the great mystical level of religion, you always become moralistic about this or that as a cheap substitute. It gives you a false sense of being on higher spiritual ground than others.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps” of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95 percent of Jesus’ written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95 percent to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgmental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, and true pro-life morality, but one could sincerely question whether Christian nations and people have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

 

[Bookcat]

I was thinking of a case where one might be a care-giver to an elderly relative who insisted on going to the “wedding”. The care giving duties **might **over-ride. But, yes, you really have to stretch your imagination to come up with a situation where you would not be culpable.

Not in my book. I have no obligation to take a relative to an objectively gravely disordered event.

 

[Bookcat]

Here’s another great quote worth considering:

In recent years and elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead.

Actually they have always been the rejected by the Church --from the get go. Not some recent aspect but from 2000 years …Read Paul, read the early Christian writings outside Scripture…tis not some new thing.

 

[Bookcat]

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

See the Catechism and also the various Social Encylicals…and the Commendium of Social Doctrine. Social sin is very real and very much confronted (by the way same sex marriage is contrary to the good of society… )

As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24).

Jesus said -go and sin no more.

If even one looks at a woman with lust (not even an exterior thing --but interior) they have committed adultery!

Saint Paul speaks in his letters about such …and it is not in support…

This is not a gnat.

But a camel.

 

[Bookcat]

A great quote for us all to meditate on from time to time in terms of the current difficulties and confusion in the society we live in --and our response (to be applied to so many things in life):

"Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived.

Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way."

~ Pope Benedict XVI (Caritas in Veritate)

 

[bilop]

Here’s another great quote worth considering:

In recent years and elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead. And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! (The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story.) When you lose the great mystical level of religion, you always become moralistic about this or that as a cheap substitute. It gives you a false sense of being on higher spiritual ground than others.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps” of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95 percent of Jesus’ written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95 percent to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgmental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, and true pro-life morality, but one could sincerely question whether Christian nations and people have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

Abortion (murder of the innocent) and homosexual sex are 2 of the 4 sins that “Cry to Heaven for Justice”. They are Biblically defined as the worst sins (along with defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans).

You reveal your agenda by mention the “seamless garment”. That’s a trite phrase used by those who somehow want to believe that increasing welfare spending by 3% more than the other party offsets support for the legalized murder of 1 million babies a year.

No other sins in modern Western Society compare to the outrage of abortion, and it’s not even close.

God Bless

 

[tskrobacz]

Abortion (murder of the innocent) and homosexual sex are 2 of the 4 sins that “Cry to Heaven for Justice”. They are Biblically defined as the worst sins (along with defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans).

You reveal your agenda by mention the “seamless garment”. That’s a trite phrase used by those who somehow want to believe that increasing welfare spending by 3% more than the other party offsets support for the legalized murder of 1 million babies a year.

No other sins in modern Western Society compare to the outrage of abortion, and it’s not even close.

God Bless

Please stay on topic…the passage was a quote about homosexuality and abortion. I did not intend for it to open a discussion on abortion.

 

[tskrobacz]

Actually they have always been the rejected by the Church --from the get go. Not some recent aspect but from 2000 years …Read Paul, read the early Christian writings outside Scripture…tis not some new thing.

You miss the point entirely. Until homosexuality came “out of the closet” it was not the mainstream focus of the church for centuries and until recent times.

 

[Corki]

You miss the point entirely. Until homosexuality came “out of the closet” it was not the mainstream focus of the church for centuries and until recent times.

Because it was never questioned by any civilized society to be gravely wrong until the last few decades. It was the push to create a “normalcy” for homosexual behavior (and for abortion) that has caused the perception that the Church is “all of a sudden” emphasizing it. She isn’t. She is just standing firm against a tide of moral degradation.

 

[bilop]

Please stay on topic…the passage was a quote about homosexuality and abortion. I did not intend for it to open a discussion on abortion.

Wait, a quote about abortion is not meant to open a discussion about abortion? You brought it up, not me.

But fine, homosexual sex is one of the 4 sins that “Cries to Heaven for Vengeance”. It is Biblically defined as one of the worst sins.

God Bless

 

[Bookcat]

You miss the point entirely. Until homosexuality came “out of the closet” it was not the mainstream focus of the church for centuries and until recent times.

Such practices were seen as excluding from the kingdom of God from the very beginning.

St. Paul and early Christian writers yes treated of the subject from the beginning.

The change is that such practices are been sought to be made legit in society in an institutional way by some in current society.

 

[bilop]

You miss the point entirely. Until homosexuality came “out of the closet” it was not the mainstream focus of the church for centuries and until recent times.

Homosexuality was widespread in the Classical Roman and Greek world, and was condemned from the beginning.

1 Corinthians, Ch. 6

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Romans Ch. 1

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

God Bless

 

[Bookcat]

Catholic Answers:catholic.com/search/content/MARRIAGE

catholic.com/search/content/MARRIAGE?page=1

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here’s another great quote worth considering:

In recent years and elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead. And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! (The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story.) When you lose the great mystical level of religion, you always become moralistic about this or that as a cheap substitute. It gives you a false sense of being on higher spiritual ground than others.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps” of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95 percent of Jesus’ written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95 percent to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgmental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, and true pro-life morality, but one could sincerely question whether Christian nations and people have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

Can you cite this quote.

Actually I think on a basic level any Christian would have to be against homosexuality and the murder of innocent babies. I don’t know, call it the litmus test if you will. I call it basic theology and Basic faith.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am not calling christianity evil…I am calling those that hide behind Catholicism or Christianity evil when they do not consider the individual, family or situation but instead make blanket, black and white declarations of what they perceive to be God’s will or what they interpret to be the Church’s teaching. Everyone is in need of God’s grace, everyone. To practice non-acceptance of the gay person and withhold Love is in no way loving them or those that care for them. From the posts here it would appear that some would prefer to fight to save a murderer from the death penalty then show up in love for a son or daughter, brother or sister, that is choosing a same sex marriage. As Jesus says…we “strain out gnats and swallow camels!”

Love requires relationship and participation. The OP and others here would prefer non-participation and separation from the wedding event (the very definition of Sin) as a way of telling someone they are loved or worse yet sending a message of judgement.

…I am calling those that hide behind Catholicism or Christianity evil when they do not consider the individual, family or situation but instead make blanket, black and white declarations of what they perceive to be God’s will or what they interpret to be the Church’s teaching.

No one on here is hiding behind or persecuting anyone. Unless it is your opinion that being against homosexual “marriage” is discriminatory and hateful. Is that your ultimate point?

 

[One_point]

Here’s another great quote worth considering:

In recent years and elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead. And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! (The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story.) When you lose the great mystical level of religion, you always become moralistic about this or that as a cheap substitute. It gives you a false sense of being on higher spiritual ground than others.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps” of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95 percent of Jesus’ written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95 percent to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgmental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, and true pro-life morality, but one could sincerely question whether Christian nations and people have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

And who is being quoted here? A dissenting hierarch? Perhaps its telling why you left this person, whoever he is, out of his own words…