Homosexuality and marriage

[pete_29]

Really. With total disregard for the health effects?

Forget it. Some people put their agenda before anything.

 

[buffalo]

If the Sodom story is about homosexuality, then what sense does Lot’s action make?
The story is about abusive power–just as in jailhouse rape today-- and failing to show welcome to the stranger under your roof/ within your gates. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same rule of hospitality in our time, so it is easy to denigrate that interpretation. Scripture must be interpreted within the culture that produced it. At that time, such hospitality was a matter of life and death.

The constant teaching and understanding from that time has been wrong? We just figured it out? Yo have put on a modern lens and trying to look back through time, disrespecting the clear tradition.

 

[scipio337]

The same way you describe heterosexuality as normal.

Do we get the “hey, it occurs in nature” fallacy now?

 

[buffalo]

But there’s a great deal of back story to the way people “define” marriage.

We can say "Between one man and one woman, " but that doesn’t tell us what it is; it just tells us who may do it.
*
one dictionary says:
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.*

so its definition includes that it is recognized by law and it is a relationship.

Then we can ask what marriage does:

partners become something that they were not before marrying

(So much for the Dictionary)

Many suggest that a function of marriage is to make parents
but since that does not always happen, and cases in which it does not happen are still called marriage, that can’t be an essential part of the definition.
Some suggest that marriage creates a home, a household or a family
Some say marriage gives spouses mutual support, and where that support is not present, popularly people would say, “that’s no marriage.”
Religious people have some additional expectations for the function of marriage:
It’s a sacrament which gives grace to spouses.

So as far as the definition goes, there is nothing that same-sex marriage would change.

another says - Webster’s

MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

 

[buffalo]

I couldn’t disagree more. The best situation is for a child to be loved, nurtured and supported unconditionally. Gender means diddly.

That is an opinion. We already covered the research. Go back and take a look.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo

**Now as a priest how would you counsel them? Say one came into the confessional, read scripture and asked you this - “I just found out sodomy is wrong.” Would you affirm them and counsel them to continue in good conscience? Or would you try to get them on the right road? **

Good question, but don’t expect an honest answer. We have been feeding a troll.

It seems so. But he has been exposed. Certainly, there is a chance for others to learn from these exchanges.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly. Now the rest of the states and the governmental laws should redefine it as well. You act as if the definition of a word cannot be changed over time.

I can recall one major change recently in the definition of the word “rape” to include men. You see “by definition” a man could not technically be “raped” for over 80 years.

Finally. We are in agreement it is an attempt to redefine marriage.

 

[buffalo]

You avoid my point though. Love, compassion, nurturing, support, guidance are not gender specific and therefore it means diddly when it comes to being a parent.

But it has an effect on the child. Again, we are adults who want our way, disregarding the best interests of the child.

 

[buffalo]

Since God created men in families to be fathers , sons, and brothers, and women to be mothers, daughters, and sisters, I’m not sure God would agree with you on this. Unless you think God is wrong in his creation, that is. Love, compassion, nurturing, support, and guidance are best served in accordance with God’s will, not man’s. His will is pretty clear on this as it is He that created us male and female.

That is exactly what they claim. God didn’t get it right and mighty man knows better.

 

[RevDon]

Really. With total disregard for the health effects?

I would hope that a couple are aware of risks that are involved in everything they do. If one or another has any doubts that what they are doing in their love-making is safe, then that constitutes a reservation that makes that act coerced and it cease to be loving.
If they don’t know the risks, then I would say that they’re acting foolishly and dangerously, but not sinfully.

What are you fishing for?

How would you answer your question?

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for your gentleness.

My starting place on this issue was the same as yours. I was obedient because I felt that obedience to Church authority was my guarantee for heaven. I didn’t have to think for myself, and frankly, nobody seemed very eager to give me any tools to think either.
Then I studied with Dominicans and Jesuits who opened my eyes to a great many things. They didn’t hate the Church or try to run down the Church. but it was as it was.
It was with great trepidation that I undertook an eight-year study of this issue as I have posted earlier. I gave great respect to the current position of the Church, and I carefully examined the tradition as it developed.
My ministry put me in contact with a great many homosexual men and women, some of whom had been together for a very long time. It was clear to me that their relationship was blessed by God, because the fruit of God’s blessing was apparent.
Additionally, my study of sacramental marriage taught me that the church does not marry anybody. The partners who vow themselves to each other are the ministers of the sacrament; the Church witnesses and recognizes what they and God have done, and then bears the responsibility of supporting the couple through good times and bad.
As I learned about the graces of marriage (and I was priest coordinator of Marriage Encounter for my diocese for four years) I saw in action the definition of marriage, which was a great deal more than the minimum contract that entails civil marriage.
I became convinced, like Peter, that God shows no partiality.

A lot is correct here. But your pastoral instincts and emotions have ruled. You have become sympathetic to your interactions without trying to lead them to God. You are simply saying you think you see God in these relationships. Have you ever paused to think that you could be approaching this from the wrong angle? The end does not justify the means.

Love is not tolerance

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[buffalo]

Father, son, brother, mother daughter, sister are indeed gender-specific terms used in describing family relationships. The words are human constructs, but the realities are God-given. Love, compassion, nurturing, support, and guidance are things people do. We do them sometimes just because people are kin. We do them sometimes because we comport our will to that of God, who does these same things, and with Jesus who told us to love one another. The family structure is the best place for people to give and to receive these gifts and to learn how to give and receive them. That said, is it God’s will that people be barred from the institution where these God-given gifts are exercised, or are we using our own (humanity’s prejudices and fears) will and just claim that it is God. The prejudices are ancient, and grew out of ancient concerns at a time when authorities did not hesitate to say that they spoke for God.

Married is not the only vocation as you well know.

Married
Single
Priesthood
Religious Life

 

[buffalo]

There is a time for everything under heaven. How long did it take for someone to suggest freedom for Black people? What were those proponents called by those who opposed it?
How long did it take for someone to propose equal voting rights for women? What were those proponents called by those who opposed it?

Were arguments from the Bible used to oppose those movements?

By the way…It was Paul who said that in Christ there is no man or woman. Would it not logically follow that those for whom that distinction is so important are not in Christ?

Was the first human that had dark skin adaptation a slave?

 

[buffalo]

What I was suggesting is that Grace and Marc were using character assasination rather than intelligent argument.

If discourse is scandal, then the Church is in a sad place. The previous Pope stated that there are topics which cannot be discussed. That flies in the face of God-given intellect. Some posters on this forum seem to believe that Truth = whatever comes out of the mouth of the hierarchy. That’s not the tradition of the Church. You can go back as far as Acts of the Apostes to see that important decisions were made through discussion, argument. Vatican I proclaimed Papal infallibility under extremely constrained circumstances which has been used exactly once, yet Catholics want to give over their intellects in everything and rest idle in the assurrance that all they must do is obey.

Sorry, but You are a part of this institution, and you bear responsibility for it too.
You have an obligation to know the scriptures and the traditions on the basis of which we make decisions, You have an obligation to use all of the means at your disposal to grow in your understanding of the scriptures and traditions, and you have an obligation to set out the arguments in a thoughtful - not just a knee-jerk- way, not only for the sake of those who call themselves members of this church, but also for the sake of those who are not. Jesus gave all of us the commission to make disciples of everybody and teach them to follow his commandments (especially the one about loving one another- which he placed near the top of the list.)

A Pope who squelches discussion is committing a grave sin, for it has been through such discussions that the Holy Spirit has led the Church. Now, I’ll drop my cause if the new Pope reveals that he has a red phone (or maybe in his case, a white one) with a direct line to heaven. Jesus’ promise of indefectibility wasn’t made to Peter, but to the Church as a whole, and there have been many times when the leadership has gone astray, but the body has brought them back to God’s way. Even if you want to say the keys were handed to Peter, He wasn’t told to use them apart from the body of the Church, and it is only in recent times that two things seem to have come together: the wide=spread higher education of Catholics with easy access to information and the laziness that prompts those same Catholics to fail to use what God has provided. No wonder this church is losing members! No wonder non-Catholics look at the Catholic Church as irrelevant!

So, if you want to call it pride that motivates me, go ahead, but I feel an obligation to keep the discussion going, even if in the end I am proved wrong. Thusfar I have found myself challenged to think, and search through my knowledge of scripture and tradition to find arguments. I believe that’s a good thing. I have been forced to present my views in a way that responds to the views held by others who do not agree with me. That is an exercise in what I think the Church should always be doing, rather than setting up walls of proclamation that make no sense to people and enforcing silence.

You can think and discuss all you want . It is good to question.

Now when man decides to democratically try to change clear teaching transmitted through Revelation then it becomes a real problem. Man sets himself up as the arbiter of truth.

So yes, there are clear teachings that man has no ability to overthrow. Why? Because no matter how smart we think we are we cannot overturn truth itself.

 

[SonSearcher]

A lot is correct here. But your pastoral instincts and emotions have ruled. You have become sympathetic to your interactions without trying to lead them to God. You are simply saying you think you see God in these relationships. Have you ever paused to think that you could be approaching this from the wrong angle? The end does not justify the means.

Love is not tolerance

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

I mean… dang. How can you refute it?

Sheen is masterful at being bold and covering the bases. What a truly holy and strong witness to the Truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

RevDon

** I don’t care about how you feel about me, and you should be able to guess from my posts that I’m not having any self-image problems.**

Well, it would seem that you do have self-image problems because you are fraudulently claiming to be a Catholic priest! Come clean!

You cannot possibly be a Catholic priest and spout the rotten bilge you have been spouting.

 

[RevDon]

A lot is correct here. But your pastoral instincts and emotions have ruled. You have become sympathetic to your interactions without trying to lead them to God. You are simply saying you think you see God in these relationships. Have you ever paused to think that you could be approaching this from the wrong angle? The end does not justify the means.

Love is not tolerance

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

I have seen verifiable evidence of good.
If I had verifiable evidence of harm, I would not support it.
On the opposing side, I hear declarations, but those declarations contradict my experience, and they cannot be verified. I keep asking the question, "What harm to any persons- the couple, their neighbors, children, society- would their marriage do? The only answer I get is “It would sanction sin.” But I’m not convinced that what I see in these couples is sin.
(Now promiscuity is sin, and I can tell you a list of harms it causes). But we are talking about something totally different here. And we are talking about influencing policy that has a direct influence over the lives of these flesh and blood people.
I contend that the opinions conservatives hold can be traced back this way:
They follow a tradition-- for some it is a tradition held by civil society and for some it is a tradition held by a religious society. That tradition has been around for a long time. The values enshrined in that tradition have been hedged about with taboos and imagery to protect and strengthen those traditions and make them easier for people to accept, because that’s how it works.
Those traditions had an origin.
For civil traditions, they come out of the needs and fears of society. A society fearing extinction will develop traditions that favor procreation.
Religious traditions implant their traditions in their sacred foundation myths (I’m not using this word in the sense of fairy tales) Their God shows concern for them by sharing their concerns and giving them help and direction in their need. People call this revelation (and I’m not pooh-poohing that, either). But let’s be real: human beings listen to God with human ears. It’s not being impious to say this, it is quite the contrary: to affirm that there is revelation.
Revelation that comes to human beings is bound by the finitude of human beings, It is influenced by language, place and time (that’s why I insist that people understand context when reading the Bible)
For that reason, we don’t just throw out what was given to earlier ages, but we need to weigh whether that revelation was an answer God intended for this time before we accept it. The tendency is to say all revelation was intended for all time, but you don’t have to be a scholar to thumb through Leviticus and say “We don’t follow that anymore.” So each generation has the authority and the obligation to examine the tradition , to pass on the tradition, and to apply the tradition in the best light of current revelation so that the tradition can speak to the world.

I especially like your devotion to Bishop Sheen, I watched him faithfully in my youth, and I notice his program is being run once again. I think it was his influence that inspired me to question and want to be able to present the message of the Church to the world.

 

[RevDon]

You can think and discuss all you want . It is good to question.

Now when man decides to democratically try to change clear teaching transmitted through Revelation then it becomes a real problem. Man sets himself up as the arbiter of truth.

So yes, there are clear teachings that man has no ability to overthrow. Why? Because no matter how smart we think we are we cannot overturn truth itself.

If by revelation you mean scripture, then you need to be able to read it if you are going to defend it.

Israel made dramatic changes from what they had been given through revelation and Christianity as done that, too. In every instance, there were those who opposed the changes. As a biblical reference I point you to Acts 10. What do you think the eleven said to Peter when he told them about his experience? They had numbers and revelation and tradition on their side. (hint: see 11:3)
Do you think it happened exactly as stated in !!:18, or do you think Luke might be "making a long story short? If you had been an apostle and heard that remarkable story that conflicted with everything you had ever been taught, everything you had always lived by, what would your reaction have been

 

[RevDon]

RevDon

** I don’t care about how you feel about me, and you should be able to guess from my posts that I’m not having any self-image problems.**

Well, it would seem that you do have self-image problems because you are fraudulently claiming to be a Catholic priest! Come clean!

You cannot possibly be a Catholic priest and spout the rotten bilge you have been spouting.

You disagree with me. I can understand that. You might even be angry at me because of my arguments. That’s expected and hoped for in that it might give you the energy you need to learn something. I might not like good arguments you present, but I would never use that kind of language as a substitute for a rational answer to your argument.

Use your outrage; don’t let it use you. If you are so confident that you are right, then you should be able to tear my postings to shreds by offering evidence and experience.

 

[RevDon]

RevDon

** I don’t care about how you feel about me, and you should be able to guess from my posts that I’m not having any self-image problems.**

Well, it would seem that you do have self-image problems because you are fraudulently claiming to be a Catholic priest! Come clean!

You cannot possibly be a Catholic priest and spout the rotten bilge you have been spouting.

Get a decent translation of scripture that at least pays attention to the meaning of Greek words.

An earlier post claimed I was likening the way other posters have responded me to the betrayal of Jesus. Not so! But there is a trial going on here.
I participate in this web site to put my ideas on trial, not to put myself on trial. I believe that this is what the web site is asking of us, and it cautions us not to make it personal.

CONDUCT RULES

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language

If you are a follower of the law, try following that one!