same sex marriage question for all faiths.

[hosemonkey]

You’re right!

Unfortunately the development of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church moves very slowly. It will take a long time before human sexuality will be re-understood to account for non-heterosexual love.

Catholics are NOT mormons. We do not change doctrine to suit circumstances. God has condemned homosexuality as contrary to His will and contrary to very nature. We are not free to gainsay God in what He requires of us. I believe that Almighty God understood homosexuality very well when He guided the Jews and St. Paul in his instructions to us. God also did not act frivolously in His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins of homosexual lust. Never mind the fools who maintain that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were those of inhospitality! I seriously doubt that God would blast a city for failing to send the Welcome Wagon 'round. God forbid that the Church founded by Jesus Christ ever condones or accepts the foul practices of homosexuality.

 

[minkymurph]

Catholics are NOT mormons. We do not change doctrine to suit circumstances. God has condemned homosexuality as contrary to His will and contrary to very nature. We are not free to gainsay God in what He requires of us. I believe that Almighty God understood homosexuality very well when He guided the Jews and St. Paul in his instructions to us. God also did not act frivolously in His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins of homosexual lust. Never mind the fools who maintain that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were those of inhospitality! I seriously doubt that God would blast a city for failing to send the Welcome Wagon 'round. God forbid that the Church founded by Jesus Christ ever condones or accepts the foul practices of homosexuality.

I don’t think the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were those of inhospitality. However, I don’t think Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed purely because homosexuality was prevalent. What little we know of the history of Sodom and Gomorrah tells us they were pretty dangerous places in addition to being decadent in many ways other than homosexuality. They were also apparently used a lot by travelers and traders because of their geographical position and apparently, people dreaded having to go through them.
In addition, we cannot assume that every man and woman in Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals and lesbians.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the practice of homosexuality. We don’t want to use this account to promote the idea that homosexuality is just about the worst sin one can commit.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were those of inhospitality. However, I don’t think Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed purely because homosexuality was prevalent. What little we know of the history of Sodom and Gomorrah tells us they were pretty dangerous places in addition to being decadent in many ways other than homosexuality. They were also apparently used a lot by travelers and traders because of their geographical position and apparently, people dreaded having to go through them.
In addition, we cannot assume that every man and woman in Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals and lesbians.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the practice of homosexuality. We don’t want to use this account to promote the idea that homosexuality is just about the worst sin one can commit.

Perhaps not, but you must agree that it seems that this behaviour by the homosexuals of Sodom made God extremely cranky and resulted in the total destruction of both cities. I wonder how close San Francisco is getting to the breaking point. If I lived there, I think that I would be moving soon.

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps not, but you must agree that it seems that this behaviour by the homosexuals of Sodom made God extremely cranky and resulted in the total destruction of both cities. I wonder how close San Francisco is getting to the breaking point. If I lived there, I think that I would be moving soon.

I don’t think God gets ‘cranky,’ but I don’t want to nit-pick over the choice of phrase.

I don’t think homosexuality would make God any ‘crankier’ than rape, child abuse, murder of an innocent victim, speaking falsely, or self-righteousness. I wouldn’t wish for the destruction of San Francisco either. Abraham questioned God in relation to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and God said if there were ten righteous men in the city, he would not destroy it for their sake.

Perhaps homosexuality is more repulsive to some people as opposed to others. I often find people are often more repulsed by the idea of two men together rather than two women. However, there are reasons why someone would become a homosexual. Personally, I think it’s easier to accept than rape. A rapist is not misguided, confused over their sexuality, or believes what they are doing is natural.

 

[John21652]

New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

For **there is a growth in the understanding **of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study

As these and many other cases demonstrate,** doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years.**

Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it.

Why didn’t they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer over time.

source: catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

Rockinchar stated in post #186, -

You’re right! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
Unfortunately the development of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church moves very slowly. It will take a long time before human sexuality will be re-understood to account for non-heterosexual love.

I responded by asking -

Maybe you could demonstrate just how the doctrine of the Catholic Church develops very slowly.

Maybe you can also tell me how long it will be before I can marry my dog?

In response you have given an account of how the understanding of dogma can develop. There is no dispute about this facet of Church theology. However, what you are referring to is the subjective understanding of recieved objective dogma, which does not change. In your response I emboldened a sentence in which you refer to doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. The doctrinal development you refer to is not the alteration of dogma. Doctrinal development refers to the fact that the understanding, as distinct from the meaning, of a doctrine can grow over the years. This is not a changing of the doctrine, but rather a growing understanding of precisely how it works.

Now refer to the sentence of Rockinchar which I have also underlined. What he is calling for here is a change in dogma, a reversal of an accepted teaching, a corruption. After all, he is wishing for a change that involves the opposite of what the Church teaches as accepted dogma. This is not simply a question of any growth in understanding of that dogma. In response to the logic contained in his statement, I asked when will I be able to marry my dog. I asked that because a marriage of a human to an animal is an example of non-heterosexual love. Church dogma on this subject would have to be totally changed to account for what Rockinchar seeks. It cannot be done. The page you linked to also explains this.

I asked for a demonstration of how dogma “develops very slowly”. Neither you, nor Rockinchar have done so. You merely described how doctrinal understanding can develop.

 

[rockerchar]

Understood…but Paul is addressing the “forms” some pagan worshippers did…including participating in temple prostitution…not a comprehensive exegis of course…but you can get the gist of how I and those who do not find Romans 1 as “normative” teaching for homosexulaity…no more than the story of Lot and his daughters engaging in drunken orgistic sex in a cave is an indictment against marriage.

 

[rockerchar]

Rockinchar stated in post #186, -

I responded by asking -

In response you have given an account of how the understanding of dogma can develop. There is no dispute about this facet of Church theology. However, what you are referring to is the subjective understanding of recieved objective dogma, which does not change. In your response I emboldened a sentence in which you refer to doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. The doctrinal development you refer to is not the alteration of dogma. Doctrinal development refers to the fact that the understanding, as distinct from the meaning, of a doctrine can grow over the years. This is not a changing of the doctrine, but rather a growing understanding of precisely how it works.

Now refer to the sentence of Rockinchar which I have also underlined. What he is calling for here is a change in dogma, a reversal of an accepted teaching, a corruption. After all, he is wishing for a change that involves the opposite of what the Church teaches as accepted dogma. This is not simply a question of any growth in understanding of that dogma. In response to the logic contained in his statement, I asked when will I be able to marry my dog. I asked that because a marriage of a human to an animal is an example of non-heterosexual love. Church dogma on this subject would have to be totally changed to account for what Rockinchar seeks. It cannot be done. The page you linked to also explains this.

I asked for a demonstration of how dogma “develops very slowly”. Neither you, nor Rockinchar have done so. You merely described how doctrinal understanding can develop.

I’m sorry but bestiality is not my specialty.

I’m referring to a re-understanding of the good and true teachings of the Church in light of observations about gender theory.

Is CCC 2357 considered dogmatic? It’s a theological conclusion that cites a Bible reference and a CDF document. No cigar.

 

[CMatt25]

In your response I emboldened a sentence in which you refer to doctrines.

I asked for a demonstration of how dogma “develops very slowly”.

Actually it was not I who referred to doctrines but the catholic.com library source I referenced. And though I think I understand you to say Rockerchar is referring to dogma, all of which you have explained are doctrine, you asked for a demonstration of “how the doctrine of the Catholic Church develops very slowly”.

 

[John21652]

I’m sorry but bestiality is not my specialty.

I’m referring to a re-understanding of the good and true teachings of the Church in light of observations about gender theory.

Is CCC 2357 considered dogmatic? It’s a theological conclusion that cites a Bible reference and a CDF document. No cigar.

No, but moral relativity is!

And you attempt to excuse it by citing reference to ‘gender theory’.

Wont and can’t work.

As for CCC2357, it sure is unequivocally self explanatory, don’t you think.

 

[Dorothy]

Rockinchar stated in post #186, -

I responded by asking -

In response you have given an account of how the understanding of dogma can develop. There is no dispute about this facet of Church theology. However, what you are referring to is the subjective understanding of recieved objective dogma, which does not change. In your response I emboldened a sentence in which you refer to doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. The doctrinal development you refer to is not the alteration of dogma. Doctrinal development refers to the fact that the understanding, as distinct from the meaning, of a doctrine can grow over the years. This is not a changing of the doctrine, but rather a growing understanding of precisely how it works.

Now refer to the sentence of Rockinchar which I have also underlined. What he is calling for here is a change in dogma, a reversal of an accepted teaching, a corruption. After all, he is wishing for a change that involves the opposite of what the Church teaches as accepted dogma. This is not simply a question of any growth in understanding of that dogma. In response to the logic contained in his statement, I asked when will I be able to marry my dog. I asked that because a marriage of a human to an animal is an example of non-heterosexual love. Church dogma on this subject would have to be totally changed to account for what Rockinchar seeks. It cannot be done. The page you linked to also explains this.

I asked for a demonstration of how dogma “develops very slowly”. Neither you, nor Rockinchar have done so. You merely described how doctrinal understanding can develop.

Excellent post!

 

[rinnie]

I have read that as well…that a same sex understanding could legitimately be read into the words used for “servant” to me is telling…it’s not as cut and dry as we have been led to beleive…and “not as cut and dry” IS the sticking point for me…I’d rather err on the side of love and mercy and accept my gay brothers and sisters than err on the side of judgement…that there is even a possibility to read the Centurion and Servant in a same sex relationship connotation…pulls me closer and closer to the side of love and mercy…

Okay now back to my point. Listen carefully to the question again. Lets not tie this into rather it is right or wrong in your view.

I told you that is it wrong. Why? Simply because that is the teaching’s of the Apostles and the CC.

Now back to my original question. IF according to your faith, your faith teaches that is is wrong. Now as I said let there be no misunderstanding the CC teaches that it is completely wrong for a couple who are of the same sex to engage in a sexual relationship of any kind, so is this women wrong to say that she will stand up for the word of God.

According to the teaching’s of the CC and the word of God it is an abomination. Now what is her duty to God to teach what her church teaches to take the stance of God and say this is indeed an abomination and unacceptable in my house?

That is my question to all of us. Do we have a duty especially when it comes in the front door, and I am saying our family friends our home to turn a blind eye or stand of for the word of God.

Its really a simple question! But again what is the answer. I am asking you all as your individual opinion, but What is God asking of us today? And when we meet him is he going to ask us if we stood up for his word or our own word or the word of the devil?

Pub you and I of course cannot relate completely on this as so with many Protestants and Catholics simply because we believe the CC is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. So we can no override the teachings of the Church. Please keep this in mind when you judge that GMother. She believes the Church teaches the true word of God like all Catholics. So please keep that in mind.

In her mind as with most strict Catholic’s there is only one Truth and its the Church. Not what WE personally feel or think. We cannot say I do not agree with what the Apostles taught. You must remember that.

So I am asking you to put yourself in her shoes and then answer the question.

 

[rinnie]

You are right. people today seemed to have forgot that Jesus did not accept sins. Jesus told the woman: go and sin no more. everyone who came to Him had to repent of their sins and do no more. A person is not to remain in sin. It seems that a new kind of love is preached here, this is not the love that God preaches. this new love teaches to the acceptance of the sins of others.

This is pretty much what my Dad always taught me. He would never just argue the point of any sin. He would simply say go to your Priest and ask him don’t take my word for it.

While I agree it is not our right to push our faith on otheres simply because God gave us free will, is it our duty to stand up for the word of God and say it goes against his word.

In the world today are too quick to turn our heads because we don’t want to get involved? And like the GM would she be showing love and compassion to a Grandaughter who is participating in mortal sin by just accepting it and saying it is fine. Or is she correct to worry about this childs soul because she is indeed in a state or mortal sin and refusing to participate and become a part of it.

Back to pretty much the question of hand what is God asking of her. To teach is word or not according to her faith. As I said before lets not get de-railed on rather its right or wrong. That is not the debate in the CC its wrong. So according to her faith its wrong.

No Catholic can dispute this. They can say they disagree with the teaching’s of the CC but they cannot say this is not the teachings of the CC.

But again that is not the question on who agrees with the CC or not. The question is what is her duty towards her God and faith?

 

[rinnie]

How about for business reasons? Just getting married doesn’t mean you have to have sex … or even love the other person.

It does in the Catholic Church. you must LOVE HONOR and OBEY.

 

[rinnie]

You’re right!
Unfortunately the development of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church moves very slowly. It will take a long time before human sexuality will be re-understood to account for non-heterosexual love.

The RCC is quite clear on this teaching and has been for over 2000 years. A marriage between a Man and Man and Women and Women is forbidden in the RCC and has been from the time of Christ.

Sex outside of marriage is also a sin. Its quite simple on its understanding and has never changed it.

If you think this is going to be re-understood as you state it who do you feel has the authority to re-understand it? It has been understood from the time of the Apostles and Christ and the understanding is quite clear. ITs a NO.

Father gave this sermon in Church just this past week. He said that the RCC is not the majority rules. The Church does not confirm to the people the people confirm to the Church.

If you want that the CC is not what you are looking for.

Anotherwards Christ does not confirm to us and our thoughs and our beliefs. We confirm to Christ. It is never going to change. Not in the RCC.

 

[rinnie]

Does not matter about the wording lets talk about the requirement. It is required in the Church to Love the other person.

Eph. 5:25-33 Husbands LOVE your wives. He who LOVES his wife LOVES himself. Rather it is read in the exact wording as written in the bible it is a requirement in the Sacrament of Marriage. That I believe does indeed address the question at hand.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Father gave this sermon in Church just this past week. He said that the RCC is not the majority rules. The Church does not confirm to the people the people confirm to the Church.

If you want that the CC is not what you are looking for.

Anotherwards Christ does not confirm to us and our thoughs and our beliefs. We confirm to Christ. It is never going to change. Not in the RCC.

This really becomes the issue as with any situation when man choose’s to ignore the teachings of Scripture and Church thus the Word of God in any country.

This isn’t a lets barter situation. Truth is this applys to Christianity. Its not nor can it ever be “well we know that God said this, but we’ll allow this instead.”

We must remain as a priority faithful to the faith. Not succumb to a decadent, weak, relativism which is contrary to the Word of God and especially to the Church. And especially in the Church. Christianity has been tested very severely in the past 50-100 years here. There are to many of us now who are convinced we must take a harder stance on all issues which effect Gods Will. Its one of two ways, either Good or evil rules, there is no inbetween.

To a large degree we allowed this already in the USA by it constitution and seperation of church and state to grow out of contol. The USA lifestyle has by large become unacceptable to Christians.

Another area which Christology ultimately will have to succumb to Gods will. To me it becomes black and white, we either do Gods will or pay the price of disobedience.

Don’t have to look to far into the social/political lifestyle we have adopted in the USA to see its impossible for this to continue to flourish and grow in this direction. Its contrary to the will of God.

While I understand there are those who’s beliefs allow them to think all this fine. Christians in general see a clear breech in Gods will.

I agree rinnie.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Publisher]

Okay now back to my point. Listen carefully to the question again. Lets not tie this into rather it is right or wrong in your view.

I told you that is it wrong. Why? Simply because that is the teaching’s of the Apostles and the CC.

Now back to my original question. IF according to your faith, your faith teaches that is is wrong. Now as I said let there be no misunderstanding the CC teaches that it is completely wrong for a couple who are of the same sex to engage in a sexual relationship of any kind, so is this women wrong to say that she will stand up for the word of God.

According to the teaching’s of the CC and the word of God it is an abomination. Now what is her duty to God to teach what her church teaches to take the stance of God and say this is indeed an abomination and unacceptable in my house?

That is my question to all of us. Do we have a duty especially when it comes in the front door, and I am saying our family friends our home to turn a blind eye or stand of for the word of God.

Its really a simple question! But again what is the answer. I am asking you all as your individual opinion, but What is God asking of us today? And when we meet him is he going to ask us if we stood up for his word or our own word or the word of the devil?

Pub you and I of course cannot relate completely on this as so with many Protestants and Catholics simply because we believe the CC is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. So we can no override the teachings of the Church. Please keep this in mind when you judge that GMother. She believes the Church teaches the true word of God like all Catholics. So please keep that in mind.

In her mind as with most strict Catholic’s there is only one Truth and its the Church. Not what WE personally feel or think. We cannot say I do not agree with what the Apostles taught. You must remember that.

So I am asking you to put yourself in her shoes and then answer the question.

And keep in mind Rinnie, that I cannot “answer” your question by denying my own beliefs concerning how God calls us to treat “the stranger within our gates”…just because I don’t like them doesn’t free me from the moral responsibility to “be Christ” before them.

The GM doesn’t want “those people” in her house…were “those people” in some way engaging in “inappropriate behavior” while in the GM’s presence? Or did the GM simply not want them around her because of who they were?

As I said…the GM lying is one problem…inhospitality another…"leaving one’s “gift before the alter” comes to mind…

I understand the CC teachings on the subject…does the CC’s teachings demand rejection of the “stranger within your gates”?

Was the GM simply not wanting “those people” around her because they engaged in “inappropriate behavior” in front of the GM…or were they simply accomaning the GD as her friend? Common courtesy and human compassion should not find back seats just becasue I don’t like the person standing in front of me…“love one another…love your enemies…do GOOD to those…seek the welfare of others before yourself…though I speak with the tongue of men and angels…and understand all myteries…and have all knowledge…and have not love…” Love is a verb…love is what we DO…not what we necessarily feel.

Refusing to show kindness, love, mercy, compassion, gentleness seems to me to be a more “deadly” issue than what two people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms by mutual loving consent…but then…that’s just me.

 

[rinnie]

And keep in mind Rinnie, that I cannot “answer” your question by denying my own beliefs concerning how God calls us to treat “the stranger within our gates”…just because I don’t like them doesn’t free me from the moral responsibility to “be Christ” before them.

The GM doesn’t want “those people” in her house…were “those people” in some way engaging in “inappropriate behavior” while in the GM’s presence? Or did the GM simply not want them around her because of who they were?

As I said…the GM lying is one problem…inhospitality another…"leaving one’s “gift before the alter” comes to mind…

I understand the CC teachings on the subject…does the CC’s teachings demand rejection of the “stranger within your gates”?

Was the GM simply not wanting “those people” around her because they engaged in “inappropriate behavior” in front of the GM…or were they simply accomaning the GD as her friend? Common courtesy and human compassion should not find back seats just becasue I don’t like the person standing in front of me…“love one another…love your enemies…do GOOD to those…seek the welfare of others before yourself…though I speak with the tongue of men and angels…and understand all myteries…and have all knowledge…and have not love…” Love is a verb…love is what we DO…not what we necessarily feel.

Refusing to show kindness, love, mercy, compassion, gentleness seems to me to be a more “deadly” issue than what two people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms by mutual loving consent…but then…that’s just me.

Good Point Pub. Here is what SHE told Me. Now remember its kind of hard for me to speak exactly on her behalf on ever question, but from putting the pieces together on years of conversation.

But here is what she said. How can I give mixed messages. I either accept this relationship or I do not.

I feel that if (these are her words now) I accept them into my home and become a part of their life as they live it I am accepting this lifestyle and sin. She said God teaches that we must remove ourself from participating in any form of sin. So in her mind she is participating in it.

But in her defense she said she would never stay with them in their home either. She cannot have in both ways.

BUt for the GD to come alone is all she asks. She said she will not preach or condemn but she will also not be apart of it. She said the girl knows the teaching of the Church and knows the way she feels.

Now the bottom line should she be forced to be a part of the GD and her friend if she feels in her heart she is going against God?

 

[rinnie]

Also let me answer this is my current situation.

My Son is 24 and moved out for awhile and lived with his girlfriend and her mom. Well thing’s did not work out and he came back home.

Well he felt they could just stay here off and on!

Wrong. I told him its not going to happen. I will not let it happen in my house. I told him I did not allow it with your sister and you will not do it either.

Well things were not real good here for awhile. She was a very bold girl and continued to stay late etc.

Finally it came down to my way or the Highway. Well she hit the road. But he stayed here.

Now 3 years later he has a new girl. After 2 years of complete hell over his SLEEPING arangements he knows I will not give in. Believe me he pushed and pushed.

Last Sat he went to a wedding. His new girlfriend slept in his room, him upstairs on the couch. No fight no argument. It is Gods law and he obyed it in the House the obeys the Lord. My House. Now I feel in MY OPINION, and now remember we are working on our OWN personal opinions what does God ask of US PERSONALLY.

GOd told me NO. While I cannot stop him from what he does other places he knows quite well the Law of our Lord. No sex w/o marriage. Am I loved for this. NO!! Many of my cusomers are older then I am live this way.

While it is not my right to tell them how to live, if they ask according to my faith is it wrong? I must say yes. I hate to hurt them but what would God want me to tell them. Thats where I am going with here. How could I face God and tell them its okay as long as you love eachother etc. Is my duty to live my faith and teach it the way (IF ASKED MIND YOU) or agree with a sin to be liked.

And while the other person and I agree its HARD to be honest and teach the truth as the Church teaches. This world does not want truth, when you give it the truth is turned around on you and you are made to be judgemental etc.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is pretty much what my Dad always taught me. He would never just argue the point of any sin. He would simply say go to your Priest and ask him don’t take my word for it.

While I agree it is not our right to push our faith on otheres simply because God gave us free will, is it our duty to stand up for the word of God and say it goes against his word.

In the world today are too quick to turn our heads because we don’t want to get involved? And like the GM would she be showing love and compassion to a Grandaughter who is participating in mortal sin by just accepting it and saying it is fine. Or is she correct to worry about this childs soul because she is indeed in a state or mortal sin and refusing to participate and become a part of it.

Back to pretty much the question of hand what is God asking of her. To teach is word or not according to her faith. As I said before lets not get de-railed on rather its right or wrong. That is not the debate in the CC its wrong. So according to her faith its wrong.

No Catholic can dispute this. They can say they disagree with the teaching’s of the CC but they cannot say this is not the teachings of the CC.

But again that is not the question on who agrees with the CC or not. The question is what is her duty towards her God and faith?

I think we live an age of lovers of man. it seem to me that many today, rather love man than love God first.
They not only want to get involved but also they chose man friendship over God friendship.
we must be very carefull with what we hear and from whom. teh devil can be very convincing. he did so in teh garden of Eden and he will do with us.
All Catholics have an obligation to protect and pass on the Truth. we dont fight the Church, we are called into obedience and not to campaign agaisnt her, this way we wont find ourselves fighting against God. I never spoke against the teachings of the Church but I have fought God on other matters and lost big.