Is it possible to join the Catholic Church and support gay marriage and abortion rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaliLobo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JamesTheJust said:
It makes them contradict the Catholic Church, which is certainly not Catholic. In fact, they incur an automatic excommunication for doing so.
Click to expand...
If the church decides that gay marriage or abortion was perfectly acceptable would you change your opinion as well or would you stick to your morals even if they contradict the church?
 
Blitzwing said:
If the church decides that gay marriage or abortion was perfectly acceptable would you change your opinion as well or would you stick to your morals even if they contradict the church?
Click to expand...
The Church can’t change her position. She never has retracted an infallible statement, and never will.

Catholics believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Thus, once she has made a statement on something, it is final and must be accepted by all the faithful.
 
JamesTheJust said:
The Church can’t change her position. She never has retracted an infallible statement, and never will.
Click to expand...
There’s a first time for everything
JamesTheJust said:
Catholics believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Thus, once she has made a statement on something, it is final and must be accepted by all the faithful.
Click to expand...
Now I know that’s not true, the catholic church has had a long history of inner conflict.

Nuns at odds with the Vatican
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/29/nuns…
Vatican scandals lift lid on secret power struggle>CNN
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/29/vati…
Vatican leak inquiry: Pope’s butler charged>BBC
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-182193…
“A series of leaks, dubbed Vatileaks, has revealed alleged corruption, mismanagement and internal conflicts.”
Roman Catholic hierarchy split on lawsuit against Obama
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-182…
Father Doesn’t Know Best
nytimes.com/2012/05/23/opinion/dow…
Vatican Crackdown On Nuns Over Social Justice Issues, Women Ordination
huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/vati…
Pope errs in rebuking sisters
cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57424019/…
Vatican orders crackdown on U.S. nun group
cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57416411/…
A survivor of child abuse by the Sisters of Mercy speaks out
youtu.be/qtrEzjXwTNw
Sinead O’Connor on Abuse in the Catholic Church
youtu.be/j6oMS-vJsDc
Survey of worldwide Catholics shows sharp disagreements on abortion, contraception
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=54191
 
Blitzwing said:
There’s a first time for everything

Now I know that’s not true, the catholic church has had a long history of inner conflict.

Nuns at odds with the Vatican
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/29/nuns…
Vatican scandals lift lid on secret power struggle>CNN
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/29/vati…
Vatican leak inquiry: Pope’s butler charged>BBC
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-182193…
“A series of leaks, dubbed Vatileaks, has revealed alleged corruption, mismanagement and internal conflicts.”
Roman Catholic hierarchy split on lawsuit against Obama
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-182…
Father Doesn’t Know Best
nytimes.com/2012/05/23/opinion/dow…
Vatican Crackdown On Nuns Over Social Justice Issues, Women Ordination
huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/vati…
Pope errs in rebuking sisters
cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57424019/…
Vatican orders crackdown on U.S. nun group
cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57416411/…
A survivor of child abuse by the Sisters of Mercy speaks out
youtu.be/qtrEzjXwTNw
Sinead O’Connor on Abuse in the Catholic Church
youtu.be/j6oMS-vJsDc
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. You expect me to read and respond to all those articles?

Allow me to clarify the Catholic position instead. We do not contend the Pope, or any other member of the hierarchy, to be impeccable (sinless), or infallible in everything they say. We do not contend, either, that the members of the hierarchy cannot disagree with each other. Rather, we believe that, once the hierarchy issues an authoritative statement, all the faithful must accept it, and when she issues an infallible one, it is true and can never be changed. Does that address all your spam?
 
JamesTheJust said:
This is ridiculous. You expect me to read and respond to all those articles?

Allow me to clarify the Catholic position instead. We do not contend the Pope, or any other member of the hierarchy, to be impeccable (sinless), or infallible in everything they say. We do not contend, either, that the members of the hierarchy cannot disagree with each other. Rather, we believe that, once the hierarchy issues an authoritative statement, all the faithful must accept it, and when she issues an infallible one, it is true and can never be changed. Does that address all your spam?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. Those articles show that not everyone even in the church hierarchy agrees with the churches positions and actions. And incidentally the doctrine of papal infallibility was only formulated in Vatican 1 (roughly 1871) so it’s not like it’s a belief that’s been with the church forever.
 
Officially, no it is not possible.

In practice, it happens regularly.

I personally stopped attending church after a series of events linked to the SSM issue (but that’s a different story) but I know of many, many Catholics who support it and still attend church. Yes, taking the Eucharist too much to your horror I am sure, they just don’t say a word in church since they don’t have a say and keep it for when it does matter (the voting booths).

I have to admit I don’t know many Catholics who are for abortion apart from the odd one who suggests it for young children who get raped. SSM though? Most of my friends are practicing Catholics and all of them are for it.
 
Celvice said:
Officially, no it is not possible.

In practice, it happens regularly.

I personally stopped attending church after a series of events linked to the SSM issue (but that’s a different story) but I know of many, many Catholics who support it and still attend church. Yes, taking the Eucharist too much to your horror I am sure, they just don’t say a word in church since they don’t have a say and keep it for when it does matter (the voting booths).

I have to admit I don’t know many Catholics who are for abortion apart from the odd one who suggests it for young children who get raped. SSM though? Most of my friends are practicing Catholics and all of them are for it.
Click to expand...
For the states of their souls, I hope they adhere to the provisions of Can. 916 (if you know you are in a state of mortal sin, it is your obligation not to approach Holy Communion).

For the states of their souls, I certainly hope their pastors have the courage to address that from the pulpit.

I am not holding my breath for either of the above.
 
Blitzwing said:
No it doesn’t. Those articles show that not everyone even in the church hierarchy agrees with the churches positions and actions.
Click to expand...
Okay, I never said that they did. My only claim is that the teachings of the Church are authoritative, binding, and, when issued in the proper way, infallible, and that infallible teachings of the Church cannot be contradicted, changed, or retracted by others.
And indecently the doctrine of papal infallibility was only formulated in Vatican 1 (roughly 1871) so it’s not like it’s a belief that’s been with the church forever.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rolleyes:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=avL6vJw5ZBE

Dogmas are only defined when they are being contended against or threatened by heresy. In the case of papal infallibility, those heresies were Gallicanism and Neo-Ultramontanism.
 
markomalley said:
For the states of their souls, I hope they adhere to the provisions of Can. 916 (if you know you are in a state of mortal sin, it is your obligation not to approach Holy Communion).

For the states of their souls, I certainly hope their pastors have the courage to address that from the pulpit.

I am not holding my breath for either of the above.
Click to expand...
Well, there is the rub Markomalley. Murder is thought of as a mortal sin, as is theft, rape and so forth. Homosexuality is not anymore, at least not in my community hence supporting it is rarely viewed as reason not to take it.

It’s not lack of catechism, people just don’t agree with it. There’s more passages of the new testament dedicated to forbidding women to teach males, speak in public or read from the gospels than there are against homosexuality, but I don’t see anyone getting upset when a woman gives a reading in mass or takes an RCIA class.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Okay, I never said that they did. My only claim is that the teachings of the Church are authoritative, binding, and, when issued in the proper way, infallible, and that infallible teachings of the Church cannot be contradicted, changed, or retracted by others.

:rotfl: :rolleyes:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=avL6vJw5ZBE

Dogmas are only defined when they are being contended against or threatened by heresy. In the case of papal infallibility, those heresies were Gallicanism and Neo-Ultramontanism.
Click to expand...
Why are these two so difficult for some people to grasp? It’s so clearly and simply laid out yet some refuse to grasp these concepts. Whether they agree or not is another issue, but it is what it is. You don’t have to like it or even agree, but it doesn’t change the truth of the matter.
 
Celvice said:
Well, there is the rub Markomalley. Murder is thought of as a mortal sin, as is theft, rape and so forth. Homosexuality is not anymore, at least not in my community hence supporting it is rarely viewed as reason not to take it.

**It’s not lack of catechism, people just don’t agree with it. **There’s more passages of the new testament dedicated to forbidding women to teach males, speak in public or read from the gospels than there are against homosexuality, but I don’t see anyone getting upset when a woman gives a reading in mass or takes an RCIA class.
Click to expand...
Your highlighted text is the crux of the problem. Even if they do hear it (which they don’t), they just blow it off.

The devil is laughing.
 
markomalley said:
Your highlighted text is the crux of the problem. Even if they do hear it (which they don’t), they just blow it off.

The devil is laughing.
Click to expand...
In your opinion 🙂

I only say this because I have an older black lady sat beside me on the bus who just your post as I was reading it on my tablet. She said she heard exactly the same thing back during the civil rights movement.
 
Celvice said:
In your opinion 🙂

I only say this because I have an older black lady sat beside me on the bus who just your post as I was reading it on my tablet. She said she heard exactly the same thing back during the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...
Wow.

So I guess I need to get into an argument with a third party on a bus? Ask her to register for CAF so we can argue face-to-face 👍

As far as similarities for the black civil rights movement, I would submit that there are three fundamental differences:
  1. A person can tell the color of my skin without me saying a word or doing a thing. The same is not true of those with SSA (and those who make the regrettable decision to act upon that temptation).
  2. There was massive and widespread economic injustice in the case of race. And the thing is: there was nothing that a person of a certain race could do to overcome it (obviously, there were exceptions…but that’s what they were: exceptions). No amount of education, no adjustment of accent, no change in behavior. Why? Because the discrimination was based upon a physical characteristic that could not be masked. The same is not true with those who act upon their SSA. Economically: a vastly more affluent segment of society. Again, if the person with SSA chooses not to disclose or chooses not to act on that temptation, then, even if society was as hostile as some claim it to be, there is nothing standing in their way.
  3. Skin color is morally neutral in the scriptures. Acting on SSA (i.e., sodomy) is hardly morally neutral in the scriptures.
If your seat-mate on the bus wishes to respond, I’d be happy to engage her directly.
 
markomalley said:
Wow.

So I guess I need to get into an argument with a third party on a bus? Ask her to register for CAF so we can argue face-to-face 👍

As far as similarities for the black civil rights movement, I would submit that there are three fundamental differences:
  1. A person can tell the color of my skin without me saying a word or doing a thing. The same is not true of those with SSA (and those who make the regrettable decision to act upon that temptation).
  2. There was massive and widespread economic injustice in the case of race. And the thing is: there was nothing that a person of a certain race could do to overcome it (obviously, there were exceptions…but that’s what they were: exceptions). No amount of education, no adjustment of accent, no change in behavior. Why? Because the discrimination was based upon a physical characteristic that could not be masked. The same is not true with those who act upon their SSA. Economically: a vastly more affluent segment of society. Again, if the person with SSA chooses not to disclose or chooses not to act on that temptation, then, even if society was as hostile as some claim it to be, there is nothing standing in their way.
  3. Skin color is morally neutral in the scriptures. Acting on SSA (i.e., sodomy) is hardly morally neutral in the scriptures.
If your seat-mate on the bus wishes to respond, I’d be happy to engage her directly.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve taken that comment a bit too far and missed the point I intended to make.

Most of us in the 1950’s would have agreed that SSM was wrong, but today in 2014 most people have taken a more progressive view and no longer do. However, I will meet the three points you have posted with my own thoughts on the matter.
  1. You’ve clearly never met a camp individual have you? Not all men are big butch manly men, the same way not all women are pink clad sex kittens. There are some individuals who can be identified as gay pretty much on sight (There is such a thing as “Gaydar”, being able to detect homosexuals because in some cases it is just as obvious as their skin color. Even the ones who are in the closet cannot always hide it.).
  2. By your logic Catholics should not receive any economic aid from society, because there are very wealthy Catholics such as the Grimaldi who are far more affluent than the average joe (indeed, I believe most Catholics actually come under the banner of “middle class” in the US and America).
There are very wealthy homosexuals in Beverly Hills, the same way there are poor ones who flip burgers at McDonalds.
  1. Womens Sufferage is even more vehemently attacked in the scriptures than homosexuality, but just you try and tell your wife that she shouldn’t vote and should not speak in public, only questioning you at home.
 
Celvice said:
Homosexuality is not {considered a sin} anymore, at least not in my community hence supporting it is rarely viewed as reason not to take it.
Click to expand...
Sorry. We don’t to decide for ourselves what is or is not a sin. Sin is based on the teachings of scripture; not popular opinion.

If I was allowed to decide for myself what is or is not a sin, I would most likely go ahead and break all the Commandments because I would have no fear of God from doing so.
 
Well you would not be in communion with the catholic church which is what happens with all the baptized catholics who don’t agree with the church’s teaching. They are baptized as catholics but they are not in communion with the church. Plus keep in mind that in the matter of abortion of you ever would procure someone and abortion or have one you would be excommunicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top