Catholic church cannot bless same-sex unions

[metis]

It doesn't really condone sex, period.

Not true. Paul made such a statement in regards to not getting married, but then he backs off on it later. Even in the early Church, birth and baptism when hand-in-hand, thus no prohibition existed then nor now.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

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.

It's all mostly surface-level stuff and wishful thinking for many. Even with all the overwhelming support and sympathetic bishops, it will die a slow death. In general, things are slow, but given the world they lived in, and the way things materialized (Councils, Emperors, etc.), the speed it moves at now, is more a thing of the times rather than the Church actually moving faster. The progressives will eventually get snuffed out and the moderates will fall in line if they so choose too. The Catholic Church will get much smaller.

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church will get much smaller.

I think so as well, but also part of the reason is that religious affiliations overall are in decline, and jot just here in the States. The Church has and will continue to change, but it does so at a snail's pace.

But what also needs to be said is that disagreement with the Church is acceptable, but with some limits. There are some bishops right now who profoundly disagree with Pope Francis on one or more issues, and I know that Pope Francis returns the "favor".

 

[firedragon]

Very helpful

I meant it Altfish. The reason I say this is because there is a lot of false perceptions going around. In everything. Everything is about an ego and a complex. Thus, dont be driven by what people think.

Thats why I said, through time, this tolerance for homosexuality has gone this way and that way. It could do so again. You never know. Thus, rather than making assumptions one must do better analysis. A little bit of research.

Anyway, you could take it offensively if you like. I dont know what else to say really.

Peace.

 

[Quiddity]

I think so as well, but also part of the reason is that religious affiliations overall are in decline, and jot just here in the States. The Church has and will continue to change, but it does so at a snail's pace.

But what also needs to be said is that disagreement with the Church is acceptable, but with some limits. There are some bishops right now who profoundly disagree with Pope Francis on one or more issues, and I know that Pope Francis returns the "favor".

That's par for the course. The dissenting is, as you indicated, nuanced and one who takes it seriously knows it's like walking on thin ice.

 

[Altfish]

I meant it Altfish. The reason I say this is because there is a lot of false perceptions going around. In everything. Everything is about an ego and a complex. Thus, dont be driven by what people think.

Thats why I said, through time, this tolerance for homosexuality has gone this way and that way. It could do so again. You never know. Thus, rather than making assumptions one must do better analysis. A little bit of research.

Anyway, you could take it offensively if you like. I dont know what else to say really.

Peace.

I totally disagree.
Religions are afraid of sex in general; if it is anything other than the missionary position between a married man and wife it is not accepted.
Even JC's conception was not natural.

I have family members who are homosexual - should I shun them? What about their off-spring - are they doomed too?
I have hetro-sexual family members and friends who are divorced, have had children outside marriage, are they to be praised?

Your religion has its priorities wrong. A happy content marriage/family is better than a family with conflict.

 

[firedragon]

I totally disagree.
Religions are afraid of sex in general; if it is anything other than the missionary position between a married man and wife it is not accepted.
Even JC's conception was not natural.

I have family members who are homosexual - should I shun them? What about their off-spring - are they doomed too?
I have hetro-sexual family members and friends who are divorced, have had children outside marriage, are they to be praised?

Your religion has its priorities wrong. A happy content marriage/family is better than a family with conflict.

You mean you reject. In order to disagree, you have to analyse. To analyse, you have to listen. But of you didnt. Thats why you brought in a strawman in desperation to reject by hook or crook.

When you absolutely have a need to reject what someone says because its from some kind of people, that's called the genetic fallacy.

Have a good day. Try.

 

[Altfish]

You mean you reject. When you absolutely have a need to reject what someone says because its from some kind of people, that's called the genetic fallacy.

Have a good day. Try.

Tarra

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where does it say they'd be executed?

Leviticus 20:18 says to execute them.
Paul repeatedly condemns it, degrades it, going as far as calling it unnatural and insists they will not inherit the Kingdom.

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.

Does not matter. Jesus teaches that thoughts are sin. To look upon someone with lust is to commit adultery in the heart. Thos basically means being gay is a sin (or just being a sexual being makes you a sinner by default).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Leviticus 20:18 says to execute them.
Paul repeatedly condemns it, degrades it, going as far as calling it unnatural and insists they will not inherit the Kingdom.

Does not matter. Jesus teaches that thoughts are sin. To look upon someone with lust is to commit adultery in the heart. Thos basically means being gay is a sin (or just being a sexual being makes you a sinner by default).

My pet peeves, just thinking, is why people keep associating homosexuality with sex and sex-thoughts!?

Shouldn't we be correcting this misinformation than confirming it?

Being gay isn't a sin. Having same sex thoughts and sex, is. A gay priest would be gay because of this orientation not whether he lusts, loves, or not. The whole thing is rediculous. Im thankful there are gay christians but they can't even go to their own church without feeling descrimnated.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My pet peeves, just thinking, is why people keep associating homosexuality with sex and sex-thoughts!?

Then go complain to Jesus.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -Matthew 5:28

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then go complain to Jesus.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -Matthew 5:28

This is not sexual orientation. Straight people can have sex with same sex. People can be celibate all their lives and know they are gay or straight. The bible says nothing about orientation. US didn't understand the concept till I think in 1940ish.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is not sexual orientation. Straight people can have sex with same sex. People can be celibate all their lives and know they are gay or straight. The bible says nothing about orientation. US didn't understand the concept till I think in 1940ish.

Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Just says looking upon someone with lust in the heart is to commit adultery. Ergo, thoughts and sexual lusts and attractions are sin.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Just says looking upon someone with lust in the heart is to commit adultery. Ergo, thoughts and sexual lusts and attractions are sin.

Since sexual orientation is irrelevant, it's inappropriate to associate anything in the bible with homosexuals, gay people, and homosexuality. If any person commits lust in their heart they are committing adultery according to the bible. That's fine and dandy until religious apply it to homosexuals. I try to correct that problem but it seems the bible knows more than doctors.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.



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.

Some equate the issue the issue of slavery with current issues like gay marriage.
Slavery itself is a sin to Christian doctrine.
Yes, the RCC is more accommodating of divorce, adultery and the like. You can say
it's fitting in with social standards, but that's in violation of its own scripture.

I found the 2003 Carindal Arinz controversy interesting. The cardinal spoke from the
RCC's own doctrine at a university, and it upset Catholic students and teachers.

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege," Cardinal Arinze said. "It is opposed
by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It
is scorned and banalised by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked
by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce."

Theresa Sanders, a professor of theology at the university, protested by leaving the stage
where Cardinal Arinze was speaking. Other students upset with the comments also left,
according to emails on a subscription list used by many of the university's gay and lesbian
students..."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some equate the issue the issue of slavery with current issues like gay marriage.
Slavery itself is a sin to Christian doctrine.

Now. Slavery is a sin to Christian doctrine now. For most of your religion's history, it was generally fine with slavery.

Yes, the RCC is more accommodating of divorce, adultery and the like. You can say
it's fitting in with social standards, but that's in violation of its own scripture.

I've reached the point where I'm willing to give people a pass on doctrinal inconsistency in the nane of kindness.

OTOH, doctrinal inconsistency in the name of cruelty - as you've been doing throughout this thread - well, that may be the greatest sin of all.

I found the 2003 Carindal Arinz controversy interesting. The cardinal spoke from the
RCC's own doctrine at a university, and it upset Catholic students and teachers.

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege," Cardinal Arinze said. "It is opposed
by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It
is scorned and banalised by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked
by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce."

Theresa Sanders, a professor of theology at the university, protested by leaving the stage
where Cardinal Arinze was speaking. Other students upset with the comments also left,
according to emails on a subscription list used by many of the university's gay and lesbian
students..."

I would say that the ideas peddled by many Christian churches - e.g. that marriage is essentially nothing more than a breeding arrangement, and that persecuting LGBTQ people is acceptable or even mandatory - is the thing that's actually "anti-life."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since sexual orientation is irrelevant, it's inappropriate to associate anything in the bible with homosexuals, gay people, and homosexuality. If any person commits lust in their heart they are committing adultery according to the bible. That's fine and dandy until religious apply it to homosexuals. I try to correct that problem but it seems the bible knows more than doctors.

No, it applies to everyone. To look upon someone with lust is to commit adultery in your heart. Gay, lesbian, hetero, homo, male, female, it doesn't matter.
And the Bible doesn't know as much as doctors. That's why it is a terrible source health and medicine. The ritual when one is cured of leprosy alone should render that the Bible is never looked upon for guidance with health, medicine, and science. In this regards, it is an impossible standard and only good for inflicted needless self-guilt and shame just for being born a sexual being.

 

[PruePhillip]

Now. Slavery is a sin to Christian doctrine now. For most of your religion's history, it was generally fine with slavery.


I've reached the point where I'm willing to give people a pass on doctrinal inconsistency in the nane of kindness.

OTOH, doctrinal inconsistency in the name of cruelty - as you've been doing throughout this thread - well, that may be the greatest sin of all.


I would say that the ideas peddled by many Christian churches - e.g. that marriage is essentially nothing more than a breeding arrangement, and that persecuting LGBTQ people is acceptable or even mandatory - is the thing that's actually "anti-life."

re Christians and slavery. RCC doctrines usually have little to do with Christian
doctrine - it's more like window dressing. Some Protestants are no better.
When I say 'Christian doctrine' I ought to say 'New Testament' instead, sadly.
New Testament doctrine is not about 'persecuting' anyone. You have no right.
Disbelieving in something is different. And one thing I personally disbelieve in
is the sexualization of our society. These days children (half from broken homes)
are taught issues about gender, alternate, queer, gay etc and will spend their
lives seeing millions of porn images, watching mainstream porn shows and
addressing an endless conga of new sexual issues. Meanwhile in Asia their
own kids get an education twice as good as Western kids, and take our jobs.
Wish them well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Slavery itself is a sin to Christian doctrine.

Genesis 9:25; Leviticus 25:44-51; Exodus 21
In the NT Jesus speaks often of slaves but fails to criticize it, and Paul often affirms slavery and goes as far as to tell Christian slaves to obey especially well (Ephesians 6:5).
Some of the things it says are just absolutely disgusting. You can sell you daughter into slavery, you get to keep the kids your slaves have, you can gift them away, the Bible even explicitly does state slaves are property (Leviticus 25:45; Exodus 21:21). It even lets you abduct certain people and make them slaves (Leviticus 25:44).
The Bible does not agree with you, and in regards to slavery it contains nothing good, decent, proper, moral, ethical, or holy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, it applies to everyone. To look upon someone with lust is to commit adultery in your heart. Gay, lesbian, hetero, homo, male, female, it doesn't matter.

Why connect it to gay people in particular?

We don't know who is gay, lesbian, or straight in the bible; so, for all we know, everyone who were killed by god could have been straight. Using the bible (in general) to say gay people were killed is so broad that to even mention gay people would be unnecessary if not an insult. In my opinion, if a christian says gay people are sinners because the bible says X, I would say no. I'd say that X verse has nothing to do with gay people just people in general.

My issue isn't that same-sex sex is a sin. Anyone can have sex. My issue is why single out gay people just because two people have same-sex sex. I'm sure there is a different, no?

And the Bible doesn't know as much as doctors. That's why it is a terrible source health and medicine. The ritual when one is cured of leprosy alone should render that the Bible is never looked upon for guidance with health, medicine, and science. In this regards, it is an impossible standard and only good for inflicted needless self-guilt and shame just for being born a sexual being.

As long as it's spoken of that these things apply to anyone and that actions are choices not because of our sexual orientation, opinions are fine. I don't follow the bible, so that I can careless. But when it comes to miseducation and misrepresenting gay "people" because X many people have wild sex in the bible, I get annoyed. Even more so when some LGBTQ allies confirm the issue instead of correcting it.