Fornication≠porn
I actually wanted to know what definition you were using specifically in that sentence.
But to humor JdV,
I didn’t say romance, I said romantic, which Webster defines as:
love = erros, not love=agape or fillial love
This was on the heels of the “sexual revolution” and “free love” of the 60’s. That was reinforced by widespread access to pornographic material. Anyone who has spent any time pondering or studying the influence of pornography to strong sexual urges resulting in actions of sexual promiscuity to include fornication and adultery understands the connection.
I apologize, but I do not understand what you are saying here. No one has forfeited anything. As I stated previously, those sins are still taught to be sinful.
He did them the courtesy of calling them the day before the funeral, so it was not an awkward event at the funeral. Actually, you don’t know whether the conversation involved a discussion of their intimate relations. However, if they were just friends or room-mates, I doubt she would describe it as a “same-sex relationship.” You cannot go to confession if there is no repentance and a decision to stop the sinful behavior. It’s also called the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In the case of a same-sex couple, they would need to decide to turn towards the Lord and to live chaste lives.
He was ordained in May and then spent some time at another parish, so he has been at this parish for a short time, maybe only a few weeks. I suppose unless some told him, the only way he would find out would be from reading the obituary.
Porn is linked to those, but it is not those, fornication can still be rampant without porn.
We live in a day and age where people “friend” people on “Facebook” who they’ve never met so they can get more from games, that some might use terms like "couple to describe a relationship with someone they’ve been with for twenty years isn’t that surprising nor is using “partner” to discuss the other person terribly unreasonable. Of course you cannot be forgiven if there is no desire to stop it, that is why I said “give them an opportunity for confession”.
Of course they’d need to turn to the Lord and live a chaste relationship. Funny thing is that if we go by Patristic writing and that of other saint a chaste same sex relationship centered on Christ is far more rewarding than marriage.
“Surely?” Why are you so determined to criticise priests? Now you suggest that the woman died when the old priest was still there and should have told the new one when we don’t know the chronology of events. You are imagining scenarios in order to find fault.
I was going along with your line of thought that the new priest has maybe only been there a few weeks.
I get the feeling you are being purposely obtuse because you are attempting to make us sound as if we are saying something we are not, so I leave you to your views. I appreciate the discussion, thank you.
Perhaps, but that would depend on a smooth hand-over of responsibility for the parish. I am not sure that took place.
In some diocese a priest isn’t given the title of “pastor” until he has been a priest for some number of years.
My thoughts. This is why it’s most charitable to tell people the truth, and enforce it, from the get-go. Someone somewhere takes the hit; in this case I think its the young priest (for following Church teaching), and the couple (for not having it enforced more clearly). A lot of young priests have their work cut out for them.
As uncomfortable as this situation is, I still think this priest did the right thing. Church teaching is that we are to interpret peoples actions in the most favorable light. Having other “well known” homosexuals in the parish is not a call for immediate action. He may indeed be counseling them behind the scenes. As for the couple in the OP, his hand was forced once they published publically their relationship. And he **did **counsel them privately. The only reason the rest of the parish (and the rest of blogdom) know what he said is because one of the women went to the press.
It was a Roman Catholic Church. This couple would be welcomed in most American Anglican parishes.
They would be** welcomed** in any Roman Catholic Church, which also loves them enough to prevent them from taking the Eucharist in an unworthy manner.
Perhaps I worded that poorly, but what I meant is that they would be welcomed to participate in the full life of the parish and Eucharist in most American Anglican parishes.
I never made any judgements in any of my posts about the appropriateness of what the RCC parish did vs. what the average Anglican parish would do. That said, I find it a bit odd that a gay couple couldn’t receive the Eucharist , yet a politician that supports late trimester abortions can…seems like some sins are placed above others.
Well, I’d respond that the couple in particular are more than welcome to do so in the Roman Catholic Church, too; it’s their choice to live how they are, and thus their choice to deny themselves the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Well, I’ll apologize for my tone, then…the wording in your last post sounded a lot like judgement in general. Sorry I snapped so quickly.
The priest in question came across irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin, regardless of what may or may not have been suspected beforehand.That said, I find it a bit odd that a gay couple couldn’t receive the Eucharist , yet a politician that supports late trimester abortions can…seems like some sins are placed above others.
I think it more likely that the priest, not being a mind-reader and not wanting to withhold the Real Presence of Christ if there was no concrete proof of their actions, had no reasonable ground on which to act until now.I can sympathize with some of the anger on the part of the gay couple in this case. If the couple had been allowed and taught that it was okay for them to receive and then they were denied on the day of her mother’s funeral, it might rub a person the wrong way. If the previous priests did a poor job of communicating the RCC teaching on the matter, then it is really hard to be upset with the gay couple. The couple also might be upset due to the fact that there are a number of well-known and active homosexuals in that parish who have not been denied communion. These other gay persons are also very active in the parish. At the end of the day, the current priest did exactly what he was taught to do in this case, however, considering the circumstances, it is hard not to sympathize with this couple. Clear and concise teaching and catechism could have prevented this whole thing, however, as an Anglican, I know all about bad catechism and inconcise teaching.
Um, that obit isn’t actually “irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin”; it didn’t say they were sexual involved and it didn’t claim they were married. Plenty of heterosexual pairs have been considered couples.Well, I’d respond that the couple in particular are more than welcome to do so in the Roman Catholic Church, too; it’s their choice to live how they are, and thus their choice to deny themselves the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Well, I’ll apologize for my tone, then…the wording in your last post sounded a lot like judgement in general. Sorry I snapped so quickly.
**The priest in question came across irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin, regardless of what may or may not have been suspected beforehand. **
And if you think the attention to abortion is being short-shrifted by the Church, I would gently posit that you don’t pay much attention to the media in general these days. The U.N. just blasted the Church in one of the most hate-filled diatribes I’ve ever seen over its stance on abortion, among other things.
I think it more likely that the priest, not being a mind-reader and not wanting to withhold the Real Presence of Christ if there was no concrete proof of their actions, had no reasonable ground on which to act until now.
