Practicing gay catholics shouldn't receive communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter 123Strontium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is that one may not be engaged in such and receive Holy Communion.

Period.
 
Rabbitthekitten said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
I’ve read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The soul is harmed when we commit a sin, especially one that is mortal. Sex outside of marriage is immoral, regardless if its homosexual or heterosexual. One has a mortal sin on their soul until they sincerely repent, confess and receive absolution.

I have faith that God’s word and the teachings of the Catholic Church are true. Do you?
 
Rabbitthekitten said:
But then you get the situation with Cardinal Keith O’Brian. They are gay, they can’t help it, but it drives them crazy. I’ve never heard such homophobic shouting. But it turns out he had his demons. Now, imagine it wasn’t considered such a grave sin. You’d have a good man still in a position to do a good job.
Click to expand...
You are very wrong there in many ways,

Firstly arguing that the Church should change it’s view on whether something is a sin just because an otherwise decent man was tempted and succumbed to temptation is an argument for abolishing sin altogether. Your argument goes along the lines of “If there was no sin, there would be no sinners, so let’s ‘abolish’ sin”. Maybe you think that when our Lord was tempted in the desert he should have just turned the stones into bread saying to himself, “I’m starving with hunger, I’m tempted, so why not change the stones into bread, so I can satisfy my cravings and desires?”

And regarding Cardinal O’Brien and his demons, you are missing the point completely. The wrongness of his actions isn’t to do with homosexual lust, it is to do with lust (be that heterosexual of homosexual), It’s not about whether homosexual acts, or heterosexual acts are considered as wrong in themselves, the point is that sex is only permitted within marriage. So unless Cardinal O’Brien was married, any willful lustful acts or thoughts would be considered sinful.

The state of being a homosexual is NOT considered sinful by the Church. What is considered sinful is any sexual acts outside marriage. Therefore heterosexual acts outside marriage are considered gravely sinful, in the same way that homosexual acts (which by their nature will always be outside marriage) are.
 
Brendan_64 said:
You are very wrong there in many ways,

Firstly arguing that the Church should change it’s view on whether something is a sin just because an otherwise decent man was tempted and succumbed to temptation is an argument for abolishing sin altogether. Your argument goes along the lines of “If there was no sin, there would be no sinners, so let’s ‘abolish’ sin”. Maybe you think that when our Lord was tempted in the desert he should have just turned the stones into bread saying to himself, “I’m starving with hunger, I’m tempted, so why not change the stones into bread, so I can satisfy my cravings and desires?”

And regarding Cardinal O’Brien and his demons, you are missing the point completely. The wrongness of his actions isn’t to do with homosexual lust, it is to do with lust (be that heterosexual of homosexual), It’s not about whether homosexual acts, or heterosexual acts are considered as wrong in themselves, the point is that sex is only permitted within marriage. So unless Cardinal O’Brien was married, any willful lustful acts or thoughts would be considered sinful.

The state of being a homosexual is NOT considered sinful by the Church. What is considered sinful is any sexual acts outside marriage. Therefore heterosexual acts outside marriage are considered gravely sinful, in the same way that homosexual acts (which by their nature will always be outside marriage) are.
Click to expand...
Ok, so why is there so much focus on homosexuals? Why not on unmarried hetrosexuals?
 
Rabbitthekitten said:
Ok, look at it another way. Imagine a gay man in a loving relationship. Devout Catholic but in a relationship with another man. He has sexual relations but confesses them every Saturday, then is free of sin for communion on Sunday. Technically, as far as I’m aware, this person can take the Eucharist no problem? But it circumvents church teaching. Is this wrong? Or is it better not to ‘cheat the system’ and live how God made him?
Click to expand...
i think you are wrong on this point. It would not be a valid confession only if the penitent promises to sin no more. If his intent IS to sin again, I fear it is not a valid confession.
 
90Domer said:
i think you are wrong on this point. It would not be a valid confession only if the penitent promises to sin no more. If his intent IS to sin again, I fear it is not a valid confession.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand this. I’m learning something from this conversation.
 
Bookcat said:
In Pauls first Letter to the Corinthians he writes of those who receive in an unworthy manner being guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord --and speaks of eating and drinking judgment upon himself.
Click to expand...
Does he define unworthy?
 
Rabbitthekitten said:
Does he define unworthy?
Click to expand...
Such applies to all kinds of mortal sin --be it fornication, lust, bank robbery, adultery, seeking to kill someone, murder, grave detraction, homosexuality etc etc etc

If I were living in an adulterous relationship – where I said “I so love this person” --that too would still be gravely sinful. And I should not present myself for Holy Communion
 
Bookcat said:
Such applies to all kinds of mortal sin --be it fornication, lust, bank robbery, adultery, seeking to kill someone, murder, grave detraction, homosexuality etc etc etc
Click to expand...
Ok, well, I’m going to bed as I have work at 6am and its gone 9pm here.

I think I’ll be too scared to come on this forum again because I think I upset too many people.

But I hope at least some of you can see what I was doing.

Goodnight and God bless.
 
Rabbitthekitten said:
No no no. All I’m saying is that you need to think outside of the Catholic box on occasion, look at my reply to Erlembald. They got my point, it’s not a case avoiding anything. It’s a case of taking responsibility for your faith. I don’t think anyone who just accepts what they are told is doing the right thing. That’s the point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...
Do you accept that 2+2=4 or that Pi = 3.1416? If so, why?
 
Anglewannabe said:
A priest has no way of knowing what people do outside of the church. If a person with homosexual tendencies walks up for communion, it is quite possible the person has not engaged in such behaviour since his last confession and is free to receive. The priest can not inquire about behaviour in front of everyone.

Now, if the person is NOT free to receive, that is between the person and God. Come judgement day it will all be settled
Click to expand...
isnt that why we have confession?

plus you have to go to confession to take holy communion ,dont we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top