H
hausofferni
Guest
Wow. Just wow. Let me go ahead and stone all the women walking around the street who have had sex before marriage while we’re at it right?
- Status
K
kozlosap
Guest
One situation involves killing and the other does not - and we wonder why we have trouble getting non-believers to listen. This reminds me of trying to explain how murder and the use of artificial birth control are both mortal sins…
1
1neophyte
Guest
Quietly points to Jesus’ encounters with the Samaritan woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery.
M
Michael1978
Guest
Those are Jesus’ words to the disciples in Matthew.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Technically the sin of sodomy is of the same nature as contraception, masturbation, porn use. That is, engaging the sexual faculties against the procreative plan of God and nature.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Then again I ask would this have been such an issue if we rep[laced gay marriage with unannulled remarriage or protestant marriage of a Catholic in the same situation? From the statements on this very site:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jim-blackburn/should-i-attend-the-wedding-or-not”]http://www.catholic.com/blog/jim-blackburn/should-i-attend-the-wedding-or-not
Therefore, in consideration of all this, I cannot recommend attending a wedding that will not result in a valid marriage. Instead, I recommend charitably explaining the reasons for declining the invitation as well as expressing hope and offering guidance for the couple in amending their plans.
K
KEP1983
Guest
When people ask “what would Jesus do?” remind them that calling people snakes, white washed tombs, and flipping over tables with whips are all within the realm of possibility. He wasn’t always Mr. Niceguy.
H
hausofferni
Guest
Ok I definitely need to do some more reading.
1
1neophyte
Guest
Exactly. Towards self appointed judges of others, and those who profited from pretending to be righteous. Where was he “not Mr. Niceguy” to those caught in sexual sin?
U
ucfengr
Guest
You should read some of the stuff he called the Pharisees.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This is only partially true. It is no longer classified as a disorder because of lobbying in the DSIM (I think that’s the right acronym, the medical encyclopedia of disorders). What changed was not medical understanding, but rather how something was referred to. This is sort of like if everyone started calling schizophrenia a lifestyle choice, that wouldn’t make it any less of a mental illness.
Your implication here is a variation on the “No True Scottsman” fallacy.
No, because that is not the priest’s job. It is the obligation of the individual to assess whether or not they are in a worthy state for the reception of our Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity.
The degree of commitment in the relationship has no bearing on the reality that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral. I’ve never understood why people use this argument. They are immoral because of the nature of the act, not the emotions of the individuals involved.
If they were truly in love, they would desire the best for each other, which would preclude them from engaging in an act which is contrary to the most basic biological realities of the human body. I don’t need faith to show that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature, science is more than capable.What I thought when I read the OP is that this couple is lucky to have such a loving family. I would never advocate for the Church to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples since it is still forbidden, however; I see no harm, much less scandal, in attending the civil ceremony or other religious marriage celebration for those that are in loveand wish to let it be known that they are in a lifetime relationship.
As I, and others, have said repeatedly; the scandal come from giving tacit approval to the ceremony by attending. Since he was there, it means that he believes there was something worthwhile in the ceremony which warranted his attendance. There was not, the only thing he attended was a sinful rejection of the nature of God’s creation. The scandal comes from his apparent (or real) approval of the farce. He was essentially saying that their delusion is valid.
This has nothing to do with being a traditionalist, and everything to do with being a Catholic. The Church condemns homosexual act, as well as the concept of “gay marriage.” This has been a constant reality since Christ walked the Earth, and will continue to be one until He comes again. It is not simply some “traditionalist” viewpoint.Yes, I understand that my stance is not that of many traditionalists, so be it.
3
3DOCTORS
Guest
Who were converted from their sinful ways due to their encounter with Jesus, Who didn’t just pat them on the head and say “it’s okay, we’re really enlightened about such things, so ignore those pesky old Ten Commandments if they cramp your style.”
Also, people are still misunderstanding the context of Pope Francis with the “who am I to judge” phrase. I suggest they do their homework. Here are some places to start:
ncregister.com/daily-news/scalfari-confesses-popes-words-in-interview-may-not-have-been-his-own/
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That woman repented of her sin and was converted to God. the Church prays daily that those engaged in homosexual acts would follow her example.
J
jediliz
Guest
One of the works of Mercy is to Instuct the Ignorant. Another is to admonish sinners.
A priest should not call a gay “union” sacred and sacramental…only a mariage betweeen a man and woman can be sacramental.
U
ucfengr
Guest
So, you’re saying a majority of priests in the West disagree with Catholic teaching? Sadly, there may be some merit to your belief. Where we likely differ is that I don’t see it as a good thing.The majority of those with advanced degrees and living in the Western Industrialized countries do not look upon LGBTQ humans as disordered. Priests are generally well educated, many having post grad degrees. Have you ever witnessed a priest refuse to offer the Eucharist to a person that is gay? I was not specifically speaking of gay marriage, but of supporting loved ones who are in a loving and long term monogamous relationship and happen to be gay, not straight. What I thought when I read the OP is that this couple is lucky to have such a loving family. I would never advocate for the Church to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples since it is still forbidden, however; I see no harm, much less scandal, in attending the civil ceremony or other religious marriage celebration for those that are in love
Yes, I understand that my stance is not that of many traditionalists, so be it.
M
Michael1978
Guest
Do the two men being “married” in the OP appear to be contrite for being caught in sexual sin? It appears to me they are celebrating it, and an errant priest is celebrating along with them. This is more akin to Jesus’ response to his little ones being led to sin, not a person caught in sexual sin and seeking healing.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Therefore, in consideration of all this, I cannot recommend attending a wedding that will not result in a valid marriage. Instead, I recommend charitably explaining the reasons for declining the invitation as well as expressing hope and offering guidance for the couple in amending their plans.
The difference in those positions is that those types of marriage have the possibility of validation. They still retain the proper form. Homosexual “marriages” are completely incapable of being valid, there are no circumstances which would allow them to be because they are contrary to the very nature of marriage.
Also, we’re actually encouraged not to attend those types of weddings, so your point is kind of mute.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Therefore, in consideration of all this, I cannot recommend attending a wedding that will not result in a valid marriage. Instead, I recommend charitably explaining the reasons for declining the invitation as well as expressing hope and offering guidance for the couple in amending their plans.
I don’t.understand tour point. A person.who has obtained an.annulment has been declared that the first marriage never existed and a second.marriage at the church us perfectly valid. What that has to do with a union that is clearly illicit?
Now if you mean something like a.divorced person with no annulment getting remarried not.the same situation, because there may be a possibility that the first marriage Did not exist. Until a.tribunal of.the church declares so, no one knows for sure if indeed the second.marriage is permitted or not. It may be permitted but it is just that the church hasn’t declare it yet. Homosexuals are a.different ballgame because right out of the bat everybody knows is illicit and that under no circumstance will.ever be a marriage.
On the case of divorced people.with no annulment the church asks us to use our best judgment. Indeed we cannot attend to ceremonies that will not end in valid marriages but with heterosexuals you don’t.know unless the church has ruled. Homosexuals it is for sure that is invalid so you can’t attend.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Have you ever read objectively Jesus conversation.with the Samaritan woman? Jesus was extremely harsh with her. Think about someone.else using the same wording that Jesus used there to you. The word harsh would be an understatement.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I just found another reason why I may never again be a practicing Catholic if the teaching is one can’t attend a non Catholic ceremony for a family member, in this case a close nephew. The priest and nephew recognize the ceremony is invalid in the Catholic Church.
- Status