Why would a straight person leave the Catholic Church over our teaching on gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MP_Kid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thats their choice. They can either accept the Truth whole-heartedly, be a CINO, or leave.
 
Monica83 said:
Thats their choice. They can either accept the Truth whole-heartedly, be a CINO, or leave.
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant to the point I made, which was someone said people don’t leave the Church over birth control, and there’s reliable evidence to the contrary. And that point was quite relevant to the conversation at hand and the topic of the thread.

People leave the Church for various reasons, and they’re not all political - I would count reasons as personal, and a lot of them seem to stem from disagreement on moral teachings. Two of the hot ones are birth control and same sex marriage. The latter is causing dissent in many churches, to include the UMC, the Presbyterians, and assuredly the Episcopalians. It’s not unique to the RCC, not that that makes a hill of beans of a difference.
 
Last edited:
Leviticus is a book from the Old Testament. Paul wasn’t in Leviticus. You are mixing up scripture and making your own assumptions.
 
MP_Kid said:
Leviticus is a book from the Old Testament. Paul wasn’t in Leviticus. You are mixing up scripture and making your own assumptions.
Click to expand...
Of course Paul was not ‘in’ Leviticus. That portion of the Torah was written centuries before Paul (Saul) was born. My point was that Saul was a Pharisee, an observant Jew who followed Halakhah, the Jewish law. Even during the time when he wrote the Letter to the Romans, he was still sorting out if the Gentiles who became followers of The Way had to convert to Judaism first. Ultimately, he decided they did not, but those who were Jewish still went to Synagogue and kept Halakhah, which means they followed the codes and laws of Torah - Leviticus.

If you’d like to read up on this, try Michael White, Danny Boyarin, or perhaps E.P. Saunders.
 
They aren’t mixing up anything. A person from the NT should be able to refer to the OT.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
A person from the NT should be able to refer to the OT.
Click to expand...
Of course they should - and did. Jesus was a Second Temple Jew, who prayed Jewish prayers and followed Jewish Law. He quoted the Scriptures all the time. Duh!
 
I left the church for a while because of the same issue. I now agree 100% with Holy Mother Church, but it took me a while to get to this point. I guess I can’t speak for your coworker, but personally it was an incorrect sense of compassion. I remember having a lot of gay friends when I was in High School because the population of gay kids in my High School was kinda high. I gave into the belief that I was denying them the love and companionship we all crave as human beings. The issue is that when I was in that mindset, my focus was on this life and on creating a “god” out of human relationships. It’s a fear of loneliness and a false sense of defending someone else’s “rights”. I want to point out that I am straight lol
 
QwertyGirl said:
They do get to decide what they believe. And that is the answer to the OPs question. They leave because they believe the church is wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s just what it is. I disagree with the CC’s teaching on this matter, so I would not join the Church even if I could believe everything else it would require me to. She disagrees with this teaching so she’s choosing to walk away - because she does not believe what she is required to. And to be honest, I think that’s more than fair. She’s not trying to ignore or twist Catholicism to fit around her, she’s come to the conclusion she cannot remain in the religion she was.

I think it’s really unfair to make assumptions that she must be a lesbian, or she’s putting politics ahead of her faith. None of us know her reasoning other than she does not agree so she walked away.
 
Probably. She did say that her husband is an atheist and wants nothing to do with any religion.
 
He followed Jewish moral Law, but obviously not Jewish civil law or else shouldn’t he have stoned the adulterous woman? “I did not come to change the law(moral wrongs are still wrong), but fulfill it(we are saved only through Him, not civil justice)”.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Paul calls for the death of those who practice homosexuality,
Click to expand...
Really? where did he do that?

Romans 1: 32

They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die…

Paul was undoubtedly citing Halachah, Jewish Law.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20: 11

This is not “calling for a death sentence”. Paul says that all mortal sins “deserve death”, and that those who practice them will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
 
Last edited:
Well they can’t actually leave the Church but I guess it is better for them to not practice the Faith under false pretense and spread error. Sad though that they can’t shun the baggage of their liberal political ideology and follow Jesus where True freedom lay. The op should give as example those SSA who have rejected that lifestyle, responded to Grace and have chose to follow Jesus.
 
In other words-spiritual death.

Also from Romans 7:9-11

9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
He followed Jewish moral Law, but obviously not Jewish civil law or else shouldn’t he have stoned the adulterous woman? “I did not come to change the law(moral wrongs are still wrong), but fulfill it(we are saved only through Him, not civil justice)”.
Click to expand...
You are using he colloquial language of 21st Century Catholicism. Not applicable. Jesus followed the Torah, and challenged a few of the 613 commandment. Only a few - important laws for certain - but yet only a few of them. He still offered sacrifices. He still kept Shabbat. He still kept Kashrut. He still kept the laws of purity. He still kept the civil laws. There is no ‘moral’ law vs ‘civil’ law in Halakhah.
 
Thorolfr said:
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right , neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
Click to expand...
You seem to be cherry picking out of that document, as the paragraph above it says something quite different:

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

The paragraph you posted is basically saying “no one should wonder why there is a kerfluffle over this”. It is not a statement condoning violence, dehumanization, abuse or blame of those who suffer from SSA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top