Louisiana Catholic Church says gay relationships are sinful, and those who do not think it a sin are like the devil who twists the truth

[yankeesouth]

Hmm…I think we can say that Christ did speak against homosexuality because St. Paul did.

Same thing is tried with Sodom and Gomorrah where we hear from modernists that it was inhospitality that was the sin of S&G but Jude 7:7 clearly states what it was.

 

[CoffeeCatholic]

“One’s full name includes the first name. President Barack Hussein Obama. You don’t address people by their middle and last names and treat it as their full name.”

I (and apparently 6 others) gave a “heart” like to this because honestly, I thought you were making a joke and I chuckled. I realized you weren’t joking when I got further down the thread.

 

[Nepperhan]

They can’t be forced to, but they can be penalized if they don’t,

No, no, no! A priest’s ministerial acts cannot be questioned or sanctioned.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If there’s a law that says they must perform those farcical “weddings,” which is the entire tpoic of conversation I was replying to, then yes, hey could be penalized for refusing to adhere to the law.

 

[JSAD]

They are correct. May be harsh, but true

 

[Nepperhan]

If there’s a law that says they must perform those farcical “weddings,” which is the entire tpoic of conversation I was replying to, then yes, hey could be penalized for refusing to adhere to the law.

There is no such law.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, I am aware there’s not. The problem is that in California they tried to get a law like that passed…

That lifesite article you were responding to, taht’s what it was about, the danger of states trying to pass laws forcing religious organizations to perform ceremonies that are contrary to their teachign.

 

[Nepperhan]

That lifesite article you were responding to, taht’s what it was about, the danger of states trying to pass laws forcing religious organizations to perform ceremonies that are contrary to their teachign.

This? “Among the exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly noted that if the High Court finds same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, then priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams will be required to perform such ceremonies – regardless of their religious beliefs – or face state penalties.”

That happens to be less than dicta. Scalia was running off at the mouth in oral argument. He should have known better, if he thought about it. It is an exaggeration. Under his view, if heterosexual marriage is currently a right, priests can be forced to marry non-Catholics?

 

[ConcernedAmerican]

From the article

“It’s sad because we are Catholics and can’t even go to church. Last time I checked, my God doesn’t judge.“

Uhhh. You might want to check again

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This? “Among the exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly noted that if the High Court finds same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, then priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams will be required to perform such ceremonies – regardless of their religious beliefs – or face state penalties.”

That happens to be less than dicta . Scalia was running off at the mouth in oral argument. He should have known better, if he thought about it. It is an exaggeration. Under his view, if heterosexual marriage is currently a right, priests can be forced to marry non-Catholics?

So, you genuinely believe that if such a law was allowed to pass that it wouldn’t lead to the persecution of those groups who would refuse to comply?

Uhhh. You might want to check again

It’s kind of scary how ignorant that person is of the Faith.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.

 

[signit]

So, you genuinely believe that if such a law was allowed to pass that it wouldn’t lead to the persecution of those groups who would refuse to comply?

Could they be forced to comply or could they only “face persecution”?

On what basis could they be forced to comply?

The Catholic Church isn’t a place of public accommodation and isn’t subject to the antidiscrimination laws.

The Church doesn’t purport to perform weddings for anybody and everybody. It doesn’t advertise wedding services to the general public. It performs Catholic weddings, for Catholics.

They might broadly “face persecution” if other people didn’t agree with them and said, “That old Catholic Church is so behind the times! They’re a bunch of religious bigots!” But that still wouldn’t mean forcing them to comply.

 

[Nepperhan]

So, you genuinely believe that if such a law was allowed to pass that it wouldn’t lead to the persecution of those groups who would refuse to comply?

What type of law? I genuinely believe that no law will ever pass which will direct a clergyman’s (or clergy woman’s) ministerial acts under his or her religion. Such would contravene the First Amendment.

 

[AlNg]

There was a sermon at the local Roman Catholic church in which the priest said that just as Jesus reached out with compassion and love to the outcasts, so too must Catholics reach out with compassion, understanding and love to the gays, lesbians and transsexuals in our community.
Is there serious division in the Roman Catholic church on this issue?

 

[JimG]

There’s nothing wrong with reaching out. Jesus reached out with compassion to the woman caught in adultery. He just didn’t tell her to continue the adultery.

 

[WingedHussar]

He also took the penalty due upon himself.

 

[stpurl]

Gee, Catholics always and everywhere have been taught to reach out with love and compassion to everybody.

One doesn’t need to belong to the group du jour.

As with anything (didn’t we mention this on another thread), individuals Have the free will to follow the Catholic teachings or to reject them.

Furthermore, individual Catholics have the freedom to follow the teachings in diverse (isn’t diversity a good thing?) ways.

Love and compassion. How do YOU define those?

Do you see love as something requiring you to affirm something you don’t truly believe in order to keep from ‘hurting somebody’s feelings?”

For example, if your Mother were a Trump follower, in order to show her love and compassion, assuming you like Biden, would you tell her that you supported Trump too? Would you find ways to affirm her choice? Would you denigrate Biden?
Or would you ‘remain quiet’? Or would you speak of things about Biden that you think would appeal to her? Would you even feel forced to tell her you absolutely disagree, and that loving her had nothing to do with politics?

(If your Mom is a Biden supporter and you’re a Trump person, just ‘reverse’ the above).

There are many ways to express love and compassion.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I will just end this matter with you. I personally met President Barrack Hussein Obama, General Kelly and Admiral Mullen at Dover Air force base. I spoke directly with the President and the high brass present. I came away with my impression of the past President as very respectful and honorable. I believe your post informed me of your position.

Peace be with you

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Good for this parish. Too many Catholics have fallen to the secular idea of what constitutes a proper relationship.

 

[toddy]

Book of Leviticus that condemn men having sex with each other, two words that describe some form of homoerotic behavior used in two lists of vices in the Second Testament, and the condemnation of idolatry and homosexuality by Saint Paul.

Jesus did not need to repeat what the Father’s Spirit said. They did not ask Jesus what everybody already knew at that time. Jesus came to earth as the Savior for the mercy and to carry our sins with Him for us.

Holy Spirit said more than that “Flesh is sin”. Homosexual, porn, 1001s on the list; etc. are the flesh.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus did not need to repeat what the Father’s Spirit said.

God gave this law to one group of people. That is an historical fact. If you take the Bible literally, and I assume you do, then you also have to take literally that the Law of Moses was given in an historical context to the Israelites. Paul taught that Christianity is no longer under the Law of Moses.

Romans must be kept in mind when reading Leviticus.