LGBT equality same as black equality

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You, based on what you believe and percieve will never agree that the Catholic Church is the Church of the living God.

That’s not true at all! Of course I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Living God! I also the believe the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church are the Church of the Living God. Our ecclesiologies obviously differ, but you knew that already.

All children of God, baptized in the trinitarian formula are called to a life of obedience and denial of self.

Indeed.

If this causes suffering then that is what it is.

Self-denial is bound to cause suffering, the effect of which is salutary. But there is such a thing as gratuitous suffering to which even well-meaning people can blindly contribute for one well-intentioned reason or another.

If giving up a relationship with a man and you are a man and that life is less physically joyful to you then that is what it is.

The good life is not necessarily the life of “physical joy.” Part of the American problem, generally, is that we believe that we’re born to be happy. That’s simply delusional and unrealistic. I’m not arguing that everyone is supposed to be happy. The good life is not necessarily a happy life, but because it is good it can be a source of *joy *(one of the fruits of the Spirit). But if the life we would imagine for others is necessarily characterized by pain and not conducive to joy, then I think we’re not actually imagining a particularly good life.

And if we are insensible to the pain of others, happy to go our merry way with a pronouncement of “that is what it is” when confronted by that pain, then I fear that the life we’re leading is also problematic.

If you want to enjoy eternal life as provided, by what is believed to be the Revelation of God, through the Church, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…then renounce your sin…

As a Christian, I renounce it. But what do you consider my sin in this context? Because I’ve a feeling you’re thinking of something special…

If you choose to continue to sin and choose what you want then stay where you are and accept your life as it is denouncing that what it is the OHCAC has offers you nothing but misery…for what does it prosper a man to gain his life only to lose it?

I’ve never denounced the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, nor have I denounced the Roman Catholic Church. Is your problem, in the end, with my ecclesiology?

It alarms me, particularly in the context of this thread, that your oblique assumption of me as a same-sex attracted person is that I am especially in sin, or in sin to a degree that a healthy opposite-sex attracted person could never know…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You in fact said it quite explicitly about a year ago, as I recall, on CAF. You even seemed to use some popular phrase to that effect.

Everybody born after the www. needs to become acquainted with the vast stores of knowledge which exceed what is currently available in electronic form.

Separately, of course, a link in itself does not convey authority or truth, merely a source. The source is only as good as the insight and/or expertise behind the source. You may understand this, but plenty of young people do not. For them, existence, authority, and legitimacy are defined by a presence on the internet.

Sad.

Ah, I bet I said “Pics or it didn’t happen” which means something along the line of “I’d like a source with that” which allows you to crosscheck it.

For a while I had the reference librarian’s number to find sources and books.

Dakota, I’m sorry that you continue to feel such sorrow. I continue to keep you in my prayers.

Mark, I follow the Catechism, I fully accept the CCC’s teachings in this matter, and I’m happy, well-adjusted, and have a very full life. I have read several other posters on CAF who have said similar things. There was a man on Catholic Answers Radio last Friday who says the same thing. The podcast of that show is available.

I fully admit and embrace that I have had a conversion experience with the Grace of God.

I understand the teaching to be:

1. feeling a sexual attraction or excitement to or for a person of the same-sex is not ordered towards procreation
2. the feelings or attractions in #1 are not sinful in and of themselves, but they are disordered by virtue of not being ordered towards procreation
3. acting on those feelings of sexual attraction or excitement is a sin. This would include dwelling on the thoughts, fantasizing, etc.
4. anything that leads to an increase in the feeling of excitement or arousal, while perhaps not a sin, is, at minimum, certainly a near occasion of sin.
5. love, fondness, affection etc are beautiful, God-given feelings which should not be discouraged, therefore, close friendships, bonds, and familial ties (whether biological or not) should be encouraged and sought

That’s pretty much how my life looks. I have 3 exceptionally close female friends, 2 very close male friends, and an untold number of professional and church friends and acquaintances. I belong to two parishes and teach PSR to 10-11 year olds in one and adult RCIA in the other. I bowl one night a week in one of the parish’s bowling league. I’m working on my MA in Theology and even before entering that program, I spent many hours reading the old writings of the Saints, Fathers, and great thinkers of the Church (The Sinner’s Guide by Louis de Grenada was instrumental in my formation). I have two beautiful godsons that I love spending time with.

quite frankly, i don’t know how my life could be more full of love and affection and I thank God every day for my life.

It’s nice to know it gets better.
I guess my problem is that I continually hear 1-4 and I never hear 5.

Dakota,

I am sure that they exist. I am also sure that the alternative can be understood. Mark asks about this as well. What is known has been shared by this writer, Posted in

With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change, post 96

“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
February 2006
virtueonline.org/portal/m…p?storyid=3650
“The books were a front for the porn.”
As you can see, it is somewhat dated, but it is still available.

Knowing both sides of the coin, where is true happiness found?

It’s easier to learn from your mistakes than someone else’s mistakes. To someone who feels very alone the concept of people who love and accept you is very very alluring. It’s easier to accept how vapid and empty it is when you’ve actually experienced it.

This is similar to an argument I would make, viz. that while a person has no choice over their race, they can choose which gender to be sexually involved with- they can also choose chastity and abstention.

The comparison between racial/ethnic origin and homosexuality is prima facie absurd.

Being able to choose who you get sexually involved with doesn’t mean you wont feel disgusted for doing one thing instead of the other.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Grace & Peace!

I guess I was not following your textual analysis. Apologies.

Being attracted to someone of the same sex. I understand this attraction to be on account of and for the sake of the perception of goodness, beauty and truth in the person to whom one is attracted and not further ordered to any homosexual sexual act. You would not say that a man who is attracted to the woman he is dating is actually entertaining a desire to fornicate (because the woman is not his wife) and is therefore in a near occasion of sin. Why then would you say that a man attracted to another man is really desiring sin?

This is heartbreaking.

I understand that life is full of suffering and that suffering can have salutary effects, but I suppose one of the reasons why I’m asking these questions and interested in the shape of the life demanded by those paragraphs you quoted above is that I cannot believe that anyone (let alone God) would actively will someone to be in such abject pain or would simply accept such pain as a normative demand on any portion of the population. That is monstrous. I must believe, therefore, not so much that the teaching is necessarily wrong (I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I have no real skin in that game), but that how it is received and therefore how it is taught or promulgated by others both within and without the Roman Catholic Church may be wrong. I cannot believe that such pain is necessary.

You are in my prayers.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

No offense taken

I thought so, you see I am very narrowly talking about it as it being objectively disordered in so far as it is the desire for something that is a moral evil, that is to say the specific desire for “homosexual acts” is objectively disordered.

How is it being taught? Badly. From the right one hears about how disgusting I/we are and from the left one hears about how being out and proud will make one feel better which are both in stark contrast to the silence from the Church.

Mark,

You, based on what you believe and percieve will never agree that the Catholic Church is the Church of the living God. All children of God, baptized in the trinitarian formula are called to a life of obedience and denial of self. If this causes suffering then that is what it is. If giving up a relationship with a man and you are a man and that life is less physically joyful to you then that is what it is.

The teaching of the Church is not focused on homosexuality however in this context it is only one sin among many that humanity is called to renounce. Some enjoy fornication, some enjoy drugs, some enjoy gluttony, some enjoy a myriad of sins…but to enjoy eternal life we are asked to renounce sin…

If you want to enjoy eternal life as provided, by what is believed to be the Revelation of God, through the Church, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…then renounce your sin…

If you choose to continue to sin and choose what you want then stay where you are and accept your life as it is denouncing that what it is the OHCAC has offers you nothing but misery…for what does it prosper a man to gain his life only to lose it?

Renouncing sin applies to me, you, and everyone else exposed to what is believed to be the truth. If you do not believe it is the truth then you are left to your own devices to rationalize and model your own principle for behavior that you then are accountable for because you have no authority but yourself and your reason.

The frustration is that many Catholics focus on this sin to the point of not commenting about other sins such as fornication and using contraceptives which are rampant in society

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

That’s not true at all! Of course I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Living God! I also the believe the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church are the Church of the Living God. Our ecclesiologies obviously differ, but you knew that already.

Indeed.

Self-denial is bound to cause suffering, the effect of which is salutary. But there is such a thing as gratuitous suffering to which even well-meaning people can blindly contribute for one well-intentioned reason or another.

The good life is not necessarily the life of “physical joy.” Part of the American problem, generally, is that we believe that we’re born to be happy. That’s simply delusional and unrealistic. I’m not arguing that everyone is supposed to be happy. The good life is not necessarily a happy life, but because it is good it can be a source of *joy *(one of the fruits of the Spirit). But if the life we would imagine for others is necessarily characterized by pain and not conducive to joy, then I think we’re not actually imagining a particularly good life.

And if we are insensible to the pain of others, happy to go our merry way with a pronouncement of “that is what it is” when confronted by that pain, then I fear that the life we’re leading is also problematic.

As a Christian, I renounce it. But what do you consider my sin in this context? Because I’ve a feeling you’re thinking of something special…

I’ve never denounced the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, nor have I denounced the Roman Catholic Church. Is your problem, in the end, with my ecclesiology?

It alarms me, particularly in the context of this thread, that your oblique assumption of me as a same-sex attracted person is that I am especially in sin, or in sin to a degree that a healthy opposite-sex attracted person could never know…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

It would appear that ecclesiology is the source of our disontent. There is as you know a thread here concerning the difficulty with ecclesiology in the Protestant paradigm that you may want to join. We all get into difficulty naming our sins don’t we? What you will discover, I believe is that you don’t find Adulterers, Gluttons, and others coming to this forum to differentiate between what is sin and not sin. On the other hand this forum does see abortion/murderers, and others coming to the forum to differentiate sin.

The dilema is that in this thread the issue if LGBT is contrasted as it concerns race and race is not a sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

No offense taken

I thought so, you see I am very narrowly talking about it as it being objectively disordered in so far as it is the desire for something that is a moral evil, that is to say the specific desire for “homosexual acts” is objectively disordered.

How is it being taught? Badly. From the right one hears about how disgusting I/we are and from the left one hears about how being out and proud will make one feel better which are both in stark contrast to the silence from the Church.

The frustration is that many Catholics focus on this sin to the point of not commenting about other sins such as fornication and using contraceptives which are rampant in society

Dakota,

I agree with you. In the context of this thread the issue was raised that LGBT and race equivocate so as you might imagine fornication and contraceptives are not relative.

It would not make sense to distinguish contraception and fornication as similar to black equality now would it?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I thought so, you see I am very narrowly talking about it as it being objectively disordered in so far as it is the desire for something that is a moral evil, that is to say the specific desire for “homosexual acts” is objectively disordered.

Thanks for the extra clarification for dense-headed me, Dakota! That’s what I take the catechism to be saying, too.

How is it being taught? Badly. From the right one hears about how disgusting I/we are and from the left one hears about how being out and proud will make one feel better which are both in stark contrast to the silence from the Church.

Badly indeed, particularly when it seems like the pain of self-hatred is being confused with the pain of self-denial and can be encouraged as such. I’m glad that Michelle mentioned her point 5 above. It’s a part of the experience of being a same-sex attracted Roman Catholic which doesn’t get much press, save, it seems, in a few very small circles. I’ve a feeling that if teachers started with point 5 as the context in which the catechism’s teaching on homosexuality should be discussed that there’d be a lot more understanding and a lot less pain around this topic.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[RobbyS]

Dakota, I’m sorry that you continue to feel such sorrow. I continue to keep you in my prayers.

Mark, I follow the Catechism, I fully accept the CCC’s teachings in this matter, and I’m happy, well-adjusted, and have a very full life. I have read several other posters on CAF who have said similar things. There was a man on Catholic Answers Radio last Friday who says the same thing. The podcast of that show is available.

I fully admit and embrace that I have had a conversion experience with the Grace of God.

I understand the teaching to be:

1. feeling a sexual attraction or excitement to or for a person of the same-sex is not ordered towards procreation
2. the feelings or attractions in #1 are not sinful in and of themselves, but they are disordered by virtue of not being ordered towards procreation
3. acting on those feelings of sexual attraction or excitement is a sin. This would include dwelling on the thoughts, fantasizing, etc.
4. anything that leads to an increase in the feeling of excitement or arousal, while perhaps not a sin, is, at minimum, certainly a near occasion of sin.
5. love, fondness, affection etc are beautiful, God-given feelings which should not be discouraged, therefore, close friendships, bonds, and familial ties (whether biological or not) should be encouraged and sought

That’s pretty much how my life looks. I have 3 exceptionally close female friends, 2 very close male friends, and an untold number of professional and church friends and acquaintances. I belong to two parishes and teach PSR to 10-11 year olds in one and adult RCIA in the other. I bowl one night a week in one of the parish’s bowling league. I’m working on my MA in Theology and even before entering that program, I spent many hours reading the old writings of the Saints, Fathers, and great thinkers of the Church (The Sinner’s Guide by Louis de Grenada was instrumental in my formation). I have two beautiful godsons that I love spending time with.

quite frankly, i don’t know how my life could be more full of love and affection and I thank God every day for my life.

Well, happy that you can deal with your infirmity, but though you abide by the letter of the Catechism description you give cover to those who take it not as a cross to bear but as --get get to the start of this threat–something very like skin color, bad only because other people say it is bad. I just saw Denzil Washington is a very good film called “Flight.” They are existentially like the character he plays (brilliantly). You are like the guys at AA.

 

[michelleds]

Well, happy that you can deal with your infirmity, but though you abide by the letter of the Catechism description you give cover to those who take it not as a cross to bear but as --get get to the start of this threat–something very like skin color, bad only because other people say it is bad. I just saw Denzil Washington is a very good film called “Flight.” They are existentially like the character he plays (brilliantly). You are like the guys at AA.

Exactly what part of my post leads you to think that I’m saying or giving cover to its only bad bc other ppl say so!? Your tone is arrogant, condescending and insulting. “We’ll, happy you can deal with your infirmity but . . .”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It would appear that ecclesiology is the source of our disontent. There is as you know a thread here concerning the difficulty with ecclesiology in the Protestant paradigm that you may want to join.

I’ve looked in on that thread, but have yet to be moved to write in it. Certainly there are things about RCC ecclesiology with which I cannot agree, but there are also things about my own church’s ecclesiology which I find bonkers. But anyway…

We all get into difficulty naming our sins don’t we?

We do indeed.

What you will discover, I believe is that you don’t find Adulterers, Gluttons, and others coming to this forum to differentiate between what is sin and not sin.

Understanding what actually is and isn’t sin is important, though. And not necessarily in the prevailing (it seems) juridical sense, but in a more pastoral sense. I often wonder what would happen to our understanding of sin if the standard juridical language of mortal and venial sin were gradually replaced (if only temporarily) by the pastoral language of “sins of malice” and “sins of weakness,” a scheme which I believe the Victorines (like Hugh of St. Victor) promulgated. (And perhaps more adulterers and gluttons should check in more often…)

Anyway, you do find, though, a bunch of people with scrupulosity issues who seem to believe that most of what they do is potentially sinful–and you have to wonder if they would not prefer that it actually is sinful so that they can deal with it in the ways they’ve been taught to deal with sin… Surely there’s a middle ground between a culture of rationalizing laxity and one of over-scrupulous severity?

The dilema is that in this thread the issue if LGBT is contrasted as it concerns race and race is not a sin.

Race is not sin. Nor, indeed, is being same-sex attracted.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve looked in on that thread, but have yet to be moved to write in it. Certainly there are things about RCC ecclesiology with which I cannot agree, but there are also things about my own church’s ecclesiology which I find bonkers. But anyway…

We do indeed.

Understanding what actually is and isn’t sin is important, though. And not necessarily in the prevailing (it seems) juridical sense, but in a more pastoral sense. I often wonder what would happen to our understanding of sin if the standard juridical language of mortal and venial sin were gradually replaced (if only temporarily) by the pastoral language of “sins of malice” and “sins of weakness,” a scheme which I believe the Victorines (like Hugh of St. Victor) promulgated. (And perhaps more adulterers and gluttons should check in more often…)

Anyway, you do find, though, a bunch of people with scrupulosity issues who seem to believe that most of what they do is potentially sinful–and you have to wonder if they would not prefer that it actually is sinful so that they can deal with it in the ways they’ve been taught to deal with sin… Surely there’s a middle ground between a culture of rationalizing laxity and one of over-scrupulous severity?

Race is not sin. Nor, indeed, is being same-sex attracted.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Here is the rub. The OHCAC is not Hugh of St. Victor. Sins are Mortal and Venial.

Calling something other than what it is does not change the substance of what it is. Calling Mortal and Venial something other than what they are is to change perception in mind that distorts the reality of what is. It may provide a comfort zone but the OHCAC is not about comfort.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota,

I agree with you. In the context of this thread the issue was raised that LGBT and race equivocate so as you might imagine fornication and contraceptives are not relative.

It would not make sense to distinguish contraception and fornication as similar to black equality now would it?

I’m not talking about this thread, I’m talking in general, surely you’ve noticed that threads on homosexuality are disproportionately popular.

Grace & Peace!

Thanks for the extra clarification for dense-headed me, Dakota! That’s what I take the catechism to be saying, too.

Badly indeed, particularly when it seems like the pain of self-hatred is being confused with the pain of self-denial and can be encouraged as such. I’m glad that Michelle mentioned her point 5 above. It’s a part of the experience of being a same-sex attracted Roman Catholic which doesn’t get much press, save, it seems, in a few very small circles. I’ve a feeling that if teachers started with point 5 as the context in which the catechism’s teaching on homosexuality should be discussed that there’d be a lot more understanding and a lot less pain around this topic.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I could have phrased it better knowing how you understand terms.

One of the major things that the Church is severely lacking in is role-models for same sex attracted teen. Having someone you can look up to is very important, in a way a lot of people need a trail to be blazed otherwise they just wander in the general direction and can get hurt by bramble and such or get lost.

Exactly what part of my post leads you to think that I’m saying or giving cover to its only bad bc other ppl say so!? Your tone is arrogant, condescending and insulting. “We’ll, happy you can deal with your infirmity but . . .”

Don’t you just love how warm and fuzzy some people on this forum make us feel?

 

[edwest2]

The Church already has a clear definition for an SSA teen and there are role models of Catholic people living with SSA who have remained chaste. The Church doesn’t need to add anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Here is the rub. The OHCAC is not Hugh of St. Victor. Sins are Mortal and Venial.

Calling something other than what it is does not change the substance of what it is. Calling Mortal and Venial something other than what they are is to change perception in mind that distorts the reality of what is. It may provide a comfort zone but the OHCAC is not about comfort.

I mis-spoke–it was William of St. Thierry (died 1148) who spoke of the malice/infirmity way of thinking of sin.

Regardless, your response is a bit surprising. You can’t possibly think that an alternative way of looking at sin which is complementary to and not challenging or dismissive of the dominant mode of classifying sin is actually some subversive way of ignoring sin. Can you? Your reaction here is inexplicable, particularly considering that William (one of St. Bernard’s best friends) is one of the 12th century’s great theologians (Hugh was also one of the 12th century greats, by the by).

Are you so convinced of my own wickedness that you would call such an eminent theologian as William (or Hugh) into question simply because I happened to mention his name? Are you so convinced of my own wickedness that perfectly orthodox ideas, when *I *express them, must be tainted by heresy, heterodoxy, or worse?

Or is this just some weird, reactionary and self-defeating kind of parochialism which rejects the good from your own tradition because it’s not expressed in an accustomed form?

Also, are you saying there’s no room in the Roman Catholic Church for anything but a juridical perspective?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[fnr]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I am all for LGBT equality. I will, however, point out that one may argue that it’s within the interest of government to promote reproduction (for various reasons), and that opening marriage to gay couples requires the government to broaden the public interest it sees in marital benefit policies such as child tax credits.

Overall, though, it’s repellent how LGBT people are treated. Relationships decades in length that aren’t acknowledged by the couples’ families, who deny them death bed visitation or funeral planning.

I would seriously suggest that you think more about how to minister TO the LGBT community rather than trying to beat them in public policy.

 

[fix]

I am all for LGBT equality. I will, however, point out that one may argue that it’s within the interest of government to promote reproduction (for various reasons), and that opening marriage to gay couples requires the government to broaden the public interest it sees in marital benefit policies such as child tax credits.

Overall, though, it’s repellent how LGBT people are treated. Relationships decades in length that aren’t acknowledged by the couples’ families, who deny them death bed visitation or funeral planning.

I would seriously suggest that you think more about how to minister TO the LGBT community rather than trying to beat them in public policy.

What is authentically repellent is propaganda and minimizing the importance of the law.

 

[fnr]

What is authentically repellent is propaganda and minimizing the importance of the law.

I can totally agree with that statement as I interpret it, but I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I mis-spoke–it was William of St. Thierry (died 1148) who spoke of the malice/infirmity way of thinking of sin.

Regardless, your response is a bit surprising. You can’t possibly think that an alternative way of looking at sin which is complementary to and not challenging or dismissive of the dominant mode of classifying sin is actually some subversive way of ignoring sin. Can you? Your reaction here is inexplicable, particularly considering that William (one of St. Bernard’s best friends) is one of the 12th century’s great theologians (Hugh was also one of the 12th century greats, by the by).

Are you so convinced of my own wickedness that you would call such an eminent theologian as William (or Hugh) into question simply because I happened to mention his name? Are you so convinced of my own wickedness that perfectly orthodox ideas, when *I *express them, must be tainted by heresy, heterodoxy, or worse?

Or is this just some weird, reactionary and self-defeating kind of parochialism which rejects the good from your own tradition because it’s not expressed in an accustomed form?

Also, are you saying there’s no room in the Roman Catholic Church for anything but a juridical perspective?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

as with all things there must be a hierarchy and here there is a hierarchy of ideas and beliefs.

Accept Mortal and Venial.

Discuss as you wish however in the end you must reference all as either Mortal or Venial not the other way around.

 

[Robertanthony]

It’s not a subordinate clause, it is a parenthetical element. I did also say “After we extract that we also have the statement that ‘This inclination is objectively disordered’.” If you go through the Latin and understand it in the context of the Church we can see that the homosexual inclination is considered disordered insofar as it is the (concupiscent) desire for homosexual acts.

If you go by the Latin you can easily affirm the statement (the Latin is the authoritative version).

You’ll have to define “same-sex attracted” for me, I’m not quite sure how you are using it.

I don’t actually know, I just wanted to know what you believe.

Could you please show me a homosexual who is happy following the Catechism? I was nearly mowed in a hit and run today and was annoyed that I only got hit in the side with the side mirror instead of being killed.

Hi Dakota Roberts, I’m late on this thread (got here searching for michelleds’ posts, wonderful woman by the way), sorry that you’re feeling this way. “Devastated” doesn’t even describe how I’d feel if I had a daughter for whom life was unbearable. But there is hope. The load you’re carrying right now seems to be too much for you, tomorrow I’ll pray the chaplet of Divine Mercy and say every single word begging God to let a beam of the light of his love pierce through the thick and grey clouds above your head. God bless you and good night. youtube.com/watch?v=NcBIbTFSwSI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

 

[fix]

I can totally agree with that statement as I interpret it, but I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

Faux equality and having civil law contradict the moral law is contrary to faith and reason.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Mark,

as with all things there must be a hierarchy and here there is a hierarchy of ideas and beliefs.

Accept Mortal and Venial.

Discuss as you wish however in the end you must reference all as either Mortal or Venial not the other way around.

He accepts the meaning behind the terms which is what is important.