R
Rabbitthekitten
Guest
Because you can prove it algebraically, I am going now! Goodnight!
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
Have a very restful sleep.
In closing I note to all readers (for I need to go for a time too…)
The words of Jesus in todays Gospel are for us all:
“go and sin no more”.
In Jesus of Nazareth is true life …for a person with same sex attraction…for one who has this struggle or that struggle — for anyone.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The Church is very clear and has been for many years, that sex outside marriage is a mortal sin. Are you trying to argue that the Church has not been clear on this? The Church has, over the years, spent far more time focusing on highlighting the sinfulness of heterosexual sex outside marriage, than it has on highlighting the sinfulness of homosexual acts.The issue of homosexual ‘marriage’ is what has raised the issue regarding homosexual acts. The Church is in favour of the availability Civil Partnerships, as this protects homosexual couples from discrimination, and does not enshrine sexual acts (as homosexual ‘marriage’ would). Love is love, but the sexual act has been given to us for the purpose of procreation, and marriage is the sacrament is to provide God’s blessing for procreation. Homosexuals cannot procreate therefore homosexual marriage cannot exist.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
I’m curious, where did you see this?
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
You have to go to confession to receive holy Communion if you are in the state of mortal sin. If your sins are all venial, you do not have to go to confession before receiving Communion, although it is always a good idea to go to frequent confession even if your sins are venial.
T
TEPO
Guest
Ugg.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
With regard to Civil Partnerships in the UK (or course the legal definitions will vary from country to country) Archbishop Nichols has said, “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said, is that these are not the same as marriage.” and he went on to say that he “would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship, a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.” Since Civil partnerships in the UK includes no mention of sexuality or sexual acts in any respect, and does not include anything akin to adultery as grounds for dissolution of Civil Partnerships, sexual fidelity is not even implicitly identified as an assumed feature of Civil Partnerships.
The issue the Church has with homosexuality is the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour, and as the Civil partnership laws in the UK continue to treat homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon, it is consistent with church teaching for Archbishop Nichols to support Civil Partnership law as a legitimate mechanism to help give stability to committed couples of the same sex, while strenously resisting any attempt by the state to redefine marriage.
Civil Partnerships are NOT Marriage, and do not include reference to (or imply) sexual relationship. They do not encourage (or discourage) an increase in sexual promiscuity above what already exists, on this basis Civil Partnership legislation is neutral. What they do do is afford a degree of legal protection to certain committed couples living together outside of marriage.
As a Church (and as individuals) we need to be very clear that we are not opposed to homosexuals, but rather we are opposed to sexual acts outside of marriage (which as homosexual marriage can never exist would include all homosexual acts. We need to be very careful though, not to appear to be more intolerant of homosexual acts than we are of the acts of heterosexuals outside of marriage. In all honest, how many of us heterosexuals on here did not, at one time, engage in some sexual acts outside of marriage? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
9
90Domer
Guest
I think one important point that is worth mentioning is that homosexual sex is disordered, which puts in on a different plane than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. And I think the attempt by SSA apologist to normalize SSA sex will make the RCC appear intolerant because there is no need to normalize heterosexual behavior.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Both are considered to be grave sins, and BOTH are considered to be morally disordered.
CCC2351 “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”
The above also defines heterosexual sex outside marriage ((which is considered to be fornication) and use of artificial contraception (both inside and outside of marriage) as disordered.
CCC 2396 “Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices”. To be guilty of any of these offences, unrepented, bars you from receiving Communion. Homosexual acts are not singled out as being worse than the others.
Both homosexual sex, and heterosexual sex outside marriage represent a complete separation from God, both equally bar the unrepented sinner from receiving Communion. A heterosexual person who is living with (and having sexual relations with) a person of the opposite sex receiving Communion is just as wrong as a homosexual man living with (and having sexual relations with) another man and receiving Communion. Both are barred from doing so.
We need to be very careful that, when taking a stance against homosexual acts, we also take an equal stance against heterosexual acts outside marriage. To fail to do so is to be guilty of prejudice and discrimination.
P
PatriceA
Guest
Which goes all the way back to the first page and the OP. We got off track. I don’t think the OP has been back to post at all.
R
Rabbitthekitten
Guest
That’s just offensive. I think Brendan has got it bang on. I think there is a certain element who uses religion as a shield for homophobic bigotry.
P
PatriceA
Guest
How is that offensive?
T
TomD123
Guest
To say homosexual sex is disordered may offend some people, but its true. It isn’t “homophobic” in reality, it has nothing to do with the orientation of the people. The fact of the matter is that sex acts which are not naturally ordered to the creation of new life are considered by the Church to be unnatural and sinful. Obviously nothing two men or women do is ordered to new life, hence it is unnatural and sinful.
There is no bigotry here. There is no point in being bigoted, the Church has 0 motivation to be bigoted. It would be a heck of a lot easier if the Church just accepted homosexuality as the rest of the culture does. This accusation isn’t fair or well thought out.
btw…You should take a look at my last post (i think it was on page 8…but I’m not sure)
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Yeah… I’m noticing that lately.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Huh?
Nope. Not with the Church.
All grave sins are included under that reality that one may not approach Holy Communion.
Be it homosexual acts or hetrosexual acts or bank robbery
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Yes, true. That is not at issue.
But then why does this thread exist, specifically mentioning homosexuality and nothing else? Because, as rabbitthekitten pointed out:
B
Bookcat
Guest
I imagine like all threads -the question came to mind and got asked.
All sorts of things get asked here.
People bring up that fact that a divorced and “remarried” person cannot receive too…or those who support abortion etc etc…
Just one among many.
Homosexual subjects have been recently popping up more frequently in the current culture --hence this came to mind.
Simply not something to call a “shield of homosexual bigotry” …just as one would not be calling the others “a shield for “attempted” remarriage bigotry” etc.
P
PatriceA
Guest
Which was pointed out on the first page that one shouldn’t single out just one group of sinners. But let’s be clear, rabbitthekitten also has a problem with the Church’s teaching on practicing homosexuality and thinks its his mission to get other Catholics to challenge that thinking. I don’t like it when married people commit adultery, does that make me a bigot?Because that’s the line of thinking that rabbitthekitten is suggesting. I love my family and friends, including my gay friends, but I’m not a bigot for hating any mortal sin I or my loved ones may commit. But I’m not going to single out one set of sinners as an example for others to ridicule either.
J
JackieMom
Guest
I think hetero couples who use contraception or masturbate are BY FAR more numerous in the communion line than gays who participate in gay sex without reconciliation. Most “out” gays feel negatively toward the Catholic Church and don’t bother attending.
R
Rabbitthekitten
Guest
Some people on this site are hard work. Look, everyone who is against homosexual practices is not a bigot? I think that’s possibly not true. There are at least two posters on here who have posted quite frankly ignorant posts. I’m not saying everyone is, I’m saying that some are. I’m not trying to change people’s view, I’m trying to foster debate. I’m trying to get people to look at why they hold their beliefs and whether it is because they truly believe them or because they are expected to believe them. To engage with Catholicism and look at different points of view, not agree with them, just to understand them.
- Status