Catholic church cannot bless same-sex unions

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you recall marriage was originally considered a union between a man and woman.

If you recall, marriage was originally the purchase by a man of one or more women.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's a rather long-winded way to deflect from your hypocrisy.

To be a 'hypocrite' you would have to judge me as a person.
This isn't deflection - it's what people say when they have to live with
changing societal standards.
If someone wants to oppose Covid masks, testing, distancing and
vaccines I will have to live it. Same with broken families and drug
abuse. A church which caves in to such things is a church established
upon worldly issues and is being led by the activists who hate it.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you recall, marriage was originally the purchase by a man of one or more women.

Ah... I think it works both ways. You know the old line - a man chases a woman till
she catches him.
And all he does is provide the sperm, the money and the security for a woman to
have children. And to go off to war, down the coal mine or out to sea as society sees
fit and for his family growing needs. THAT'S 'purchase' on a grander scale. And until
I read of 50,000 women casualties on the Somme in a single morning I won't believe
it will ever change.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No it is not. You may bless and pray for an individual, even an individual in a same sex relationship. But you cannot bless the same sex relationship itself as such relationships are inherently sinful. Sex may only occur in marriage and marriage is - in the clear teachings of our lord - between one man and one woman until death.

Matthew 19:4-6 NIV
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
​

What was true yesterday remains true today.


The Cross is heavy and the path narrow, uphill and littered with sharp stones. We all must struggle against our disordered passions which tempt us to turn from the laws of God. No matter the species of concupiscence one happens to suffer. The reward awaits those who trust in God and walk the hard path. Not for those who gratify their carnal desires, which modern people believe to be the human good.

I saw two roads. One was broad, covered with sand and flowers, full of joy, music and all sorts of pleasures. People walked along it, dancing and enjoying themselves. They reached the end without realizing it. And at the end of the road there was a horrible precipice; that is, the abyss of hell. The souls fell blindly into it. As they walked, so they fell. And their number was so great that it was impossible to count them. And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of this path there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings” (Diary 153). Saint Faustina
​

On the contrary I expect the opposite. I expect to find myself in an increasingly hostile society which despises the Gospel. Because I see a society which has been given over to its lusts.

Romans 1:24-25 NIV
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen
​

Spoiler: Continence

​

Abstaining from sexual activity is called continence.

I claim commitment to the truth as I believe it to be. And while I accept the possibility that Christianity as the exclusive truth could be wrong, I am nonetheless convinced of the following:

1. God exists.
2. The soul exists.
3. The moral law exists. And it is not up for compromise.
4. The moral law is more or less as laid out in the New Testament.
   
5. The soul will be judged according to his or her deeds in life.

I read all related scripture awhile back. What's interesting is god blesses same-sex relationships. It would be hard-pressed to withhold his blessings as of one's sex determines the nature of the heart and relationship.

I just feel you guys have more issues with one's sex than the nature of the commitment. Therefore, intersex christians can only get married if they don't identify (well, the church doesn't care about identification) asake or female.

The church can do whatever, but I do believe if a same-sex christian couples heart is in the right place their God will bless their relationship in accordance to scriptural values.

Male and female scripture isn't about relationship but procreation. Gay christisns don't get married to procreate so the scripture doesn't apply. All scripture related to this doesn't address the nature of the heart. So, I can't see how their God would withhold their blessings unless God felt that salvation is of the heart and marriage is of sex.

God has some weird prohibitions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Bible says multiple times that if a man lies with another man they are to both be executed. Their blood is on their hands. This is OT and NT. Jesus said nothing of genitals, but he made it very clear he did not change a single word of the Law.
These "affirming churches" are doing what Jesus said to not do. Which is changing and lessening the Word. They say this-and-that no longer applies. It doesn't mean that. Jesus speaks of warnings to those who would do such a thing.

Where does it say they'd be executed?

There is no mention of gay people on scripture just people who engaged in same sex sex. We don't know their orientation nor their gender. So, gods prohibitions in scripture are based on a person's actions. Christians translate gay relationship as a lustful one but that's not in scripture.

But where does it say they (gay people specifically) are executed?

 

[oldbadger]

Blame whom? I think those religions are correct insofar as they teach that transgressions of the moral law are punished after our time here on Earth.

Yes, Christianity is a demand. The moral law is not optional. And indeed, the Gospel does threaten those who would be obstinate in scorning God.

The Old Testament laws clearly show which actions were abominable, and your list of 'Moral Laws' clearly ignores many of them

Although it is not a doctrine of the Catholic faith, it has been the consistent opinion throughout the Church's history that the majority of people will be damned. Christians included. The words of Jesus in regards to salvation being a narrow road also imply it. On the other hand, we have the words of mystics and visionaries who have reportedly spoken with God directly. I believe it was Saint Faustina who said something along the lines of that no one who genuinely wants salvation will fail to achieve it. We condemn ourselves to Hell because we love the transient over the eternal.

So there's two contradicting principles, straight off. A Consistent Opinion that the majority will be damned whilst St Faustina tells you that any who wish salvation shall have it.

I take it you believe that those who do not accept sodomy as a moral good are bigots. So be it. What you consider bigotry is not a concern of mine.

Rubbish...... it is just a fact that people can be in love with others of their own gender. There's no 'moral' good or bad about it.

And with that you confirm what I already suspected. You don't understand the Christian tradition.

I understand the Christian Tradition alright. A steadfast position of prejudice about selected actions whilst ignoring others that Jesus insisted that you keep.

Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial.​

You didn't need to listen to Aquinas, you had Jesus who explained quite clearly which laws to follow or not.
There was no 'moral' law, but there were commandments, sacrificial rules and ceremonial rules.
The commandments were all about building a strong, powerful, large and successful nation of people. Jesus dismissed the sacrificial/ceremonial stuff because it just kept a fat, greedy, hypocritical, corrupt priesthood.

The first law is dietary and falls under the ceremonial in regards to ritual cleanliness. It does not apply to Christians as we are not under Mosaic Law. The second you list is moral. It applies for all time and for all people as it is a precept of the natural law.

Total bunkum. The dietary laws were ALL required back then to avoid sickness and death. Sin led to sickness, not evil.

Sodomy still leads to sickness.

No it does not. It is a human right which should be acknowledged.

It can lead to sickness where couples are not closed, just as it can with hetero-couples.

And what is going to happen if and when certain STDs such as gonorrhea become more resistant to antibiotics? When our current medicines cease to work? Will you then preach restraint?

I won't be preaching anything, simply I will believe in closed relationships and or precautions against STDs.

Shellfish Poison Paralysis is totally deadly but you don't make a fuss about that Law.

Jesus required a full return of the old laws (except sacrificial/ceremonial) back then, but Christians don't bother. Today we do have much better understanding about safety, security and medicine and don't need to have masses of babies to strengthen our tribes, so some adjustment would be sensible.

But some Christians are just stuck in the millennia old framework, whilst other Christians accept gay love, recognise gay partnerships, ordain gay priests and even marry gays. Those are the Churches that should grow, imo.

I must run a thread on OT abominations....... that should be interesting.

 

[firedragon]

Here is the Stonewall timeline

Key dates for lesbian, gay, bi and trans equality

But you ignored the post and just replied with another thing. So obviously you are not intending to accept anything right mate?

Do more research. Not shallow surfing the internet. Too shallow.

 

[firedragon]

That is two separate peoples;

Of course two different people(S). Thats the whole point.

It shows what I said mate.

 

[firedragon]

20th and 21st century: Several Muslim majority countries continue to criminalize homosexuality, some following through with that Biblical command to kill them.

Exactly what I said. Thanks for affirming.

 

[pearl]

I do not know of any incidents of the Church blessing a civil marriage, like a civil divorce, it is not recognized by the Church. Marriage in the Church is a sacrament.
Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5].

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.


For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

Responsum della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede ad un dubium circa la benedizione delle unioni di persone dello stesso sesso (vatican.va)

Even concerning a heterosexual marriage, the pleasures experienced are of secondary importance, first remains for pro-creation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Abstinence is a better term to use.

You didn't understand what he meant by "continence"? I did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't understand what he meant by "continence"? I did.

Yes, but it was a strange use of the term.

 

[Altfish]

Another way to look at this, is that things that endure don't follow generational fads that do not last. They need to lead and not follow. The decline of the Church in America, for example, began when they tried to appease liberalism. Dumbing down the Church into the light of Progressive and secular fads did not work, after a 60 year trial period. Once the dumb down started attendance steadily declined. This continued path only makes sense for those who wish it not to endure. Learn from your mistakes.

If you recall marriage was originally considered a union between a man and woman. The Progressive were the one who tried force a change in thousands of years of traditions. They tried to hijack marriage at the secular level, with lawyers and not just common sense dialog. The high jackers are now surrounded by the law enforcement of enduring traditions. If you let the hijacker get away with this, then there will be more hijackings, until nobody will want to fly the friendly skies.

If the Church wants to grow it needs to look backward to a healthier system restore point, so it can start down a proven path to the future. Same sex marriage cannot create children. Marriage was originally defined by the church and most religions as the union of male and female. This made the multiplier effect of children possible; be fruitful and multiply, so the flock can multiply, even though there will be attrition due to some secular high jacking.

The Church is still strong in second and third world countries where the old ways are practiced; humble surrounds. It is on decline, as was pointed out, where secular forces highjack it to a larger degree. Common sense now has to apply.

Why don't same sex people form their own union, their own church, and then bless each other? See if this can endure, while fighting off hijackers. Why act like a virus needing to alter a host to your own needs? The corona virus shows what happens when cells are invaded by virus, who cannot live on the own. I am not value judging behavior, but only pointing how virus work and how cells work. Be a healthy cell and be your own entity. The path of the virus will make people defensive.

You seem to believe that homosexual rights are a 21st Century fad. I presume you assume that evangelical Christians will end this evil movement and subject another section of society to hell.
I don't think this is the case; like slavery, repression of homosexuals is now seen as a bad thing that should not be repeated
Regarding same sex couples not being able to have children; the two couple i know both have children, lovely kids that are thriving in a loving home. Have you not heard of IVF, adoption, surrogacy? One couple was a Roman Catholic pairing, they are now lapsed.

I happen to believe that religion as we know it is on its way to extinction; a few sects will survive and some religions and regions of the world are behind in this.

 

[Altfish]

But you ignored the post and just replied with another thing. So obviously you are not intending to accept anything right mate?

Do more research. Not shallow surfing the internet. Too shallow.

Mate??

I did not ignore your post, I thought I'd answered it.
What are you expecting, what will alleviate your ire?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to believe that homosexual rights are a 21st Century fad. I presume you assume that evangelical Christians will end this evil movement and subject another section of society to hell.
I don't think this is the case; like slavery, repression of homosexuals is now seen as a bad thing that should not be repeated
Regarding same sex couples not being able to have children; the two couple i know both have children, lovely kids that are thriving in a loving home. Have you not heard of IVF, adoption, surrogacy? One couple was a Roman Catholic pairing, they are now lapsed.

I happen to believe that religion as we know it is on its way to extinction; a few sects will survive and some religions and regions of the world are behind in this.

The extreme sects may be the last to go. Sadly too many people want to hate for some reason or other and religion makes hate acceptable. Or at least it has. For many years one could excuse bad behavior by claiming it was one's religion.

 

[metis]

It may already have been mentioned [I'm strapped for time], but one major source for the Church is the Bible, and the Bible simply does not condone gay sex.

Now, before getting on my case with the above, I do not agree with Pope Francis' statement, especially since I'm not a scriptural literalist plus I believe the Bible reflects subjective 2000 year old cultural values, thus not the science on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be a 'hypocrite' you would have to judge me as a person.
This isn't deflection - it's what people say when they have to live with
changing societal standards.

Right. Maybe take a break from reviling all the people you disagree with, go back a few pages, see what the Bible passage you quoted says about revilers, then tell me again that you aren't being hypocritical.

If someone wants to oppose Covid masks, testing, distancing and
vaccines I will have to live it. Same with broken families and drug
abuse. A church which caves in to such things is a church established
upon worldly issues and is being led by the activists who hate it.

The Catholic Church is moving on the issue of respect for LGBTQ people. They're even moving more swiftly than they normally do.

I remember what was coming out of the Catholic Church during the same-sex marriage debate here in Canada. That vitriol was very homophobic; I don't think evil would be too harsh a term for it.

Now, "only" 16 years later, their rhetoric has changed to something much more muted. Still not full respect, but much closer to it. For the most part, we now have a Church who acknowledges that they shouldn't try to interfere with LGBTQ rights or criticize LGBTQ people too strongly; they just don't want to fully welcome LGBTQ people into their own community.

For an organization that was so slow to respond to changing attitudes on slavery that they kept slaves themselves right up until the mid-1990s, this is a lightning pace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may already have been mentioned [I'm strapped for time], but one major source for the Church is the Bible, and the Bible simply does not condone gay sex.

It doesn't really condone sex, period. Other religious groups (e.g. the Shakers) realized this and lived by it; it's just that these groups dwindled away for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, there's plenty in the Bible for both sides to latch onto.

For instance, it also says that those who try to prohibit marriage have "desert[ed] the faith and occup[ied] themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared."

 

[firedragon]

Mate??

I did not ignore your post, I thought I'd answered it.
What are you expecting, what will alleviate your ire?

Analyse further.

 

[Altfish]

Analyse further.

Very helpful