Embrace people, for their own worth (as opposed to the perceived qualities of a “relationship”), by all means. But this does not require that any Truth be abandoned. The Pope argued going to where people are (physically and metaphorically) and preaching the Gospel. The Pope also said: " The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church…"Indeed. If Pope Francis participated in this thread, the thread we be only two posts long. He is a model for seeing what is good and true in every situation and how we should embrace those who are different and on the fringes.
Don’t be so sure that the two posts would argue in your “favor”. The Pope also reaffirmed that we “must” follow the catechism. The teaching of the catechism are clear. You can’t “Pick and choose”.Indeed. If Pope Francis participated in this thread, the thread we be only two posts long. He is a model for seeing what is good and true in every situation and how we should embrace those who are different and on the fringes.
You still don’t get it . Her marriage was never consummated because of prophecies that said the savior of the world will be born to a virgin . That is the way that God wanted it . To drag these very unique circumstance and this woman who is exalted above all other humans into a discussion about same-sex relationships is disgusting, to say the least . Our Blessed Mother should not be used to try to score cheap debate pointsOkay, I am sorry if this was offensive. But really. How? How was anything that was said about using Mary and Joseph’s marriage as an illustration of a valid out of place? It was pertinent to the discussion. I sense this talk of offense as some kind of diversion from the truth that the Blessed Virgin’s marriage illustrates: Consummation is not required for a valid marriage. Even now.
And in the first post Would be to reiterate the churches long-standing teachings on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and remind us of his personal condemnation of so-called homosexual marriage. His second post would be to reach out to those who engage in this behavior with love and compassion and ask them to come into the loving embrace of Holy Mother Church- and say to them repent and sin no moreIndeed. If Pope Francis participated in this thread, the thread we be only two posts long. He is a model for seeing what is good and true in every situation and how we should embrace those who are different and on the fringes.
I agree, the Catholic Church will NEVER change her teachings on the Sacredness of Sex, Marriage and the dignity of the human person. What in the world is at all dignified about same sex sex?. It is unnatural, degrading and barren. Go ahead and beat your head against a brick wall if you want but that will never change. Others have tried to force the Catholic Church to change (such as ordaining women) and it just doesn’t work. Prayers for all. God Bless, Memawcatholic1seeks,
The above is part of
What’s wrong with a permanent, faithful, stable same-sex sexual relationship?
written by Ed Shaw, Associate Pastor at Emmanuel Bristol Church (under Church of England) in the UK, one of three Christian leaders with same sex attraction, giving witness and counsel to other Christians seeking guidance on a site called livingout.org.
I invite you to read the articles and Q&As at livingout.org, and view the video presentations that address the assertions you repeat and questions you pose worded in different ways to challenge the proscription on lived out homosexuality.
I have to say that if there is any one “obsessed with the gay issue” as you claim in a previous thread you opened, it is you and others like you who are in this forum to simply serve as another pressure group. You will not be convinced no matter what, that on a matter of faith and morals, the Catholic Church is not about to yield to popular or political pressure. It would be easy to join churches that are already gay affirming with more giving in, giving up, on the demand of the crowd pushing to have “same sex relationships accepted, even celebrated.”
You and Thorolfr submit the recurring argument that faithful same sex relationships somehow nullify scriptural teaching on homosexuality. It does not. It is unlikely you can be convinced, considering you opened a thread indicative of the direction you want the Catholic Church to go, “Could the CC ever change its teaching on homosexuality?”
,
And it’s disgusting… How?You still don’t get it . Her marriage was never consummated because of prophecies that said the savior of the world will be born to a virgin . That is the way that God wanted it . To drag these very unique circumstance and this woman who is exalted above all other humans into a discussion about same-sex relationships is disgusting, to say the least . Our Blessed Mother should not be used to try to score cheap debate points
One can answer this thread with a “yes” even if one were to maintain traditional teaching.And in the first post Would be to reiterate the churches long-standing teachings on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and remind us of his personal condemnation of so-called homosexual marriage. His second post would be to reach out to those who engage in this behavior with love and compassion and ask them to come into the loving embrace of Holy Mother Church- and say to them repent and sin no more
If you welcome someone by condemning them first or telling them to repent, most people probably wouldn’t even stick around to listen to anything else that was being said. Love and compassion should come first.And in the first post Would be to reiterate the churches long-standing teachings on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and remind us of his personal condemnation of so-called homosexual marriage. His second post would be to reach out to those who engage in this behavior with love and compassion and ask them to come into the loving embrace of Holy Mother Church- and say to them repent and sin no more
Agreed you can’t say welcome to someone and then go on to say “No this is wrong and you need to stop.”If you welcome someone by condemning them first or telling them to repent, most people probably wouldn’t even stick around to listen to anything else that was being said. Love and compassion should come first.
I think that’s because the Pope is able to look beyond the daily reality. There is a possibility, however remote, that some same-sex couple demonstrates a redeeming quality that is worthy of note. An example that comes to mind is an elderly couple who continue to care for each other long after any sexual or romantic attachment has faded. You might say that the redeeming quality, however, is in spite of the fact that they are in an immoral relationship, not because of it.One can answer this thread with a “yes” even if one were to maintain traditional teaching.
I believe the pope maintains traditional teaching, but I also believe he would be far more open to seeing the good these relationships bring than many users on here are.
What do you mean by “define themselves by their relationships”? Isn’t that true of straight people, too. If you meet someone for the first time and they’re married, you’re likely to meet them with their spouse. They might say in introducing themselves, for example, “My name is John and this is my wife Susan”. Well, gay people with partners are the same. Someone might say, “My name is John and this is my partner Joe.” So is that what you mean by gay people “defining themselves by their relationships”…just like straight people do?But for most of us, her on CAF and “in real life” the same sex couples we know are those that are trying to create something that looks like a marriage but is actually a mockery of the institution or who define themselves by their relationships. For those couples, it’s impossible to attribute “goodness” in the relationship.
Really? this is exactly how all other sinners are welcomed into the Church Why should homosexual sinners be treated differently ?Agreed you can’t say welcome to someone and then go on to say “No this is wrong and you need to stop.”
That’s my point. Married couples are not publicly living out a disordered relationship. There is no reason they should NOT make that part of their definition. But same-sex couples who define themselves by their relationships are making a public statement about an immoral lifestyle. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, you don’t see that with other disordered relationships. A man does not usually introduce you to his mistress the first time you meet him or make sure you know that he is in a romantic relationship with his sister.What do you mean by “define themselves by their relationships”? Isn’t that true of straight people, too. If you meet someone for the first time and they’re married, you’re likely to meet them with their spouse. They might say in introducing themselves, for example, “My name is John and this is my wife Susan”. Well, gay people with partners are the same. Someone might say, “My name is John and this is my partner Joe.” So is that what you mean by gay people “defining themselves by their relationships”…just like straight people do?
I would say that many persons who have mistresses know that it is wrong.That’s my point. Married couples are not publicly living out a disordered relationship. There is no reason they should NOT make that part of their definition. But same-sex couples who define themselves by their relationships are making a public statement about an immoral lifestyle. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, you don’t see that with other disordered relationships. A man does not usually introduce you to his mistress the first time you meet him or make sure you know that he is in a romantic relationship with his sister.
More to the point…When a couple marry it is assumed that the marriage is valid (canon law) and the couple WILL consummate the marriage.Okay, I am sorry if this was offensive. But really. How? How was anything that was said about using Mary and Joseph’s marriage as an illustration of a valid out of place? It was pertinent to the discussion. I sense this talk of offense as some kind of diversion from the truth that the Blessed Virgin’s marriage illustrates: Consummation is not required for a valid marriage. Even now.
One essential element of marriage is procreation. An element nonresistant in a homosexual marriage.Can. 1101 §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
catholic.nowealthbutlife.com/valid-consummated/More to the point…When a couple marry it is assumed that the marriage is valid (canon law) and the couple WILL consummate the marriage.
If a couple enters into marriage with the INTENTION of not consummating the marriage a marriage does not exist.
So then what of elderly couples who marry in the Church?One essential element of marriage is procreation.
A great answerFriendship has many redeeming qualities, but what is sinful (sexual activity with the same sex) does not. It is truly sad that friendship almost has a negative connotation these days, as if it’s somehow lesser or regrettable! We live in an era where strangers can add us on social media and they are called “friends,” so the definition has been quite diluted. We even have the modern habit of looking back at historical friendships and attributing sexual motives to them, because we cannot simply accept the fact that friends can be that close. David and Jonathan in the Bible come to mind. There is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same sex. It is the misuse of our bodies, of our sexuality, that is wrong.
So are you trying to say that if a man “feels” that it’s ok to have a mistress, then he should be open in polite society about having one? That’s basically what has happened with the issue of homosexual relationships. Just a few decades ago, any rational person could have told you that to live publicly as a homosexual couple was wrong. What changed? Did wrong all of a sudden become right? If so, who’s to say that having a mistress or marrying your sister or having a fling with your high school student isn’t going to be considered “right” next year? If right and wrong are completely dependent on what a person thinks and feels, rather than rational thought or a moral compass, what is society based on?I would say that many persons who have mistresses know that it is wrong.
I do not think at all that that is the case for homosexual persons in a committed relationship. They do not think it is wrong, in the first place.