Please define “romantic relationship”
Deep friendships are not sinful.
What you call “complicity” most moral theologians call cooperating with sin. And the degree to which one is culpable for that cooperation is a mix of known and unknown factors, not assumptions.
Ok you make an interesting case here and I get what your saying. Thank you.
That’s possible but two people entering into such an arrangement wouldn’t likely be haveing a “wedding” reception, let alone ordering a custom “wedding” cake.
)Attempting marriage is sinful. It’s not the only sin. Non-Christian marriages are usually valid marriages as are marriages outside the Church between two non-Catholic Christians. They are real marriages, not attempts at marriage. There isn’t anything sinful about a valid marriage outside the Church or between non-Christians.
No, it is not a sin to bake a cake for a valid marriage even if it is not Sacramental. But even if it was a completely invalid marriage, it *might be *cooperation with evil but it may or may not be sinful depending on degree of cooperation and knowledge. Knowledge is important. You can’t sin by accident. But you can cooperate with evil unwittingly.
I know Pope Francis has said that he thinks half the marriages in Buenos Aires are invalid. It seems granted annulment percentages would cooperate this here in the US.That’s possible but two people entering into such an arrangement wouldn’t likely be haveing a “wedding” reception, let alone ordering a custom “wedding” cake.
(btw, using St. Basil and St. Gregory doesn’t really help here. The way that people expressed friendship was very different in centuries past. Even the way people publicly expressed married love was different than it is today. Not to mention that neither was writing in English. It is always hard to translate from an expressive language into English which is much less expressive than, for example a Romance language - no pun intended.
Attempting marriage is sinful. It’s not the only sin. Non-Christian marriages are usually valid marriages as are marriages outside the Church between two non-Catholic Christians. They are real marriages, not attempts at marriage. There isn’t anything sinful about a valid marriage outside the Church or between non-Christians.
No, it is not a sin to bake a cake for a valid marriage even if it is not Sacramental. But even if it was a completely invalid marriage, it *might be *cooperation with evil but it may or may not be sinful depending on degree of cooperation and knowledge. Knowledge is important. You can’t sin by accident. But you can cooperate with evil unwittingly.
I haven’t seen that quote, perhaps you can provide a source? If true, Argentina is a predominantly Catholic country. He may have been referring to the number of civil marriages by Catholics or he may have been referring to seemingly valid marriages that might be found null if examined.
But the overwhelming number of marriages **are **valid. Virtually ALL marriages between two non-Catholics (a man and a woman) are valid unless there was a prior bond.
Don’t ask, don’t tell works just fine. Why would you need to know what the cake is for if a man or even two or three or five men order a cake out of a catalog?
Answer my statements first please.
Religion is not required for compassion.
Agreed, religion is not needed for compassion; but the religious institutions have made the most head way for elevating human dignaty over fear. Yes, religious institutions will still speak the truth they know, but they elevate human dignaty. Again, when groups push to entitle themselves to hurt others (as in the businesses listed by OP) they are butting the hand that feeds them. Sometimes, you can only get bitten so much before you walk away. This is where for a split second, let’s surrender to Russia and it will fix itself (I know … I know bad idea )
Russia is no longer an atheist nation. The Russian Orthodox Church is influential there now.
No, it helps, it’s desirable, but not strictly necessary. Hence the analogy.
It is desirable, but not strictly necessary. See above.
The act is immoral, as is the celebration of something immoral, and the celebration includes acknowledging the intent to engage in immoral sexual acts.
Straw man argument. The question is not about providing food to unrepentant sinners, the question is about giving material assistance in the commission of an immoral act, AND the scandal of doing so, as it sends the message that the act which you are supporting is morally acceptable.
How can you write the above, and now claim to know the heart of the baker?
Not intentionally. Why is it offensive to ask someone if they truly want to convert to a religion that they do not whole-heatedly love and believe in? In your studies, or in your RCIA class, have they discussed “The Great Commision” with you?
I’ve been writing about the same topic all along. Please clarify what part of what I’ve written appears to be off topic, please?
No. Your restatement of my posts misrepresents them. I was questioning what appears your support for homosexuality.
Then, like it or not, when necessary you must be willing to both say so, and act in accordance to that belief.
A fine statement of what you believe. But what is your faith?
Thank you, brother. Here it is:
I do give weight to Caesar intruding on what is God’s, yes. But the point here is that of sending the message that homosexuality is acceptable, moral, normal, is not what God intended when he laid the Great Commission upon us.
You are misrepresenting the cases in question. The cakes in question were not ordered out of a catalog as a mass produced item, but specifically as “made to order” items that required the baker to know what he was doing, and what the cake would be used for.
The quote, as I was taught it, was: “God is perfect love.” That statement is, of course, a lie; a lie of omission. God is also perfect mercy, perfect reason, perfect justice, and etc. God is not just love.
No. You restated my position incorrectly. Why, isn’t clear, so out of deference to how difficult this seems to be for you to grasp, I will go slowly, point by point:
No. Really, really slowly: we aren’t talking about the act of baking, nor the state of being of the person you are baking for.
The immoral action of being complicit in a homosexual “union” or “wedding.”
All of these questions are easily settled by just allowing the free market to work.
Some religious folks feel very differently about it. Why should the government help them form their consciences?
Racism and discrimination by behavior are not comparable. Do not fall for that fallacy, it’s one of the favorites purported by the gay “marriage” movement.
A lot of this “compassion” in general is just talk. It’s fun to use the force of government to take from others while claiming credit for “helping” and “giving”.
I think we’re getting close to a straw man here…