Heh...yeah, in practical terms. Doctrinally I don't think it's changed though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dozens of German priests will defy the Vatican and live-stream blessings of gay couples
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
Heh...yeah, in practical terms. Doctrinally I don't think it's changed though.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Homosexuality doesn't damn anyone to hell. It's ritually unclean, just as childbirth is.
'Dozens of Catholic priests in Germany plan defy the Vatican and bless homosexual partnerships, with many set to live-stream the blessings online.
In March, the Vatican decreed that the Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex marriages. In response, more than 230 professors of Catholic theology in Germany – and other countries where German is spoken – signed a statement protesting the decision, the Associated Press reports.'
Source: Dozens of German priests will defy the Vatican and live-stream blessings of gay couples
Good on them for doing the right thing in standing up to the immorality of the Vatican in discriminating against gay couples in my opinion
No one is perfect. It makes sense to kick someone out for being imperfect (so why did God kick Adam and Eve out of Eden? Why Sodom destroyed? Why earth flooded?). God made humans imperfect then objects when they prove it?
The bible is against homosexualism, but they could otherwise be regular people (some good). It doesn't make sense to exclude Gays from the church or heaven. It isn't our place to judge. All are God's children, and only God may judge them.
Certainly the Vatican was too lenient with child molesting priests in the past. It would be odd to rail against Gays now.
Aside from the fact that any demon, as strong as the devil, doesn't seem like the Gay type. Although, he would be a snappy dresser, and hell would be decorated professionally.
We Never Know
No Slack
This may have something to do with it.'Dozens of Catholic priests in Germany plan defy the Vatican and bless homosexual partnerships, with many set to live-stream the blessings online.
In March, the Vatican decreed that the Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex marriages. In response, more than 230 professors of Catholic theology in Germany – and other countries where German is spoken – signed a statement protesting the decision, the Associated Press reports.'
Source: Dozens of German priests will defy the Vatican and live-stream blessings of gay couples
Good on them for doing the right thing in standing up to the immorality of the Vatican in discriminating against gay couples in my opinion
In Germany 87% say society should accept homosexuality. The only country to be higher is Spain with 88%.
The Global Divide on Homosexuality
In my opinion people should just live to be happy and let others do the same.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
The OP claims that the Vatican's position to refuse to bless same-sex unions was "immoral" - which is a violation of Forum Rule #8 "Preaching/Proselyting" because it was "stating [an opinion] as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references)" - and therefore may be subject to moderation.
I don't personally care about that - but moderators on this site might not consider what you said to be a simple "expression of opinion" - as you put it - since it did not include any of the language indicative of an opinion. It was voiced as a statement of fact - not opinion.
And the real irony is that you have a desire to tell the Vatican what they should do and believe while simultaneously criticizing them for doing the same.
And the Vatican - as well as anyone else on planet Earth (including you and I) - has every right to tell anyone they want how they should live or believe.
You just can't force anyone to listen. And - as far as I can tell - the Vatican is not forcing anyone to seek a Catholic blessing or to believe as they do - but these renegade priests want to force the Catholic Church to change their doctrine.
Those who seek membership in the Catholic Church and want to remain members would need to adhere their lives to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
So - the moment you create a "club" with it's own regulations and standards that a member must adhere to in order to continue their membership - no one should be able to tell you how to run it. It's your "club".
Except you don't. You don't want them to practice their beliefs as they see fit. You want them to change.
This activated my hilarity unit.
I was mocking the definition of "discrimination" that you supplied which said "especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people".
Discrimination is discrimination. There is nothing inherently wrong with it and there is no "especially worse way" to do it.
Yes - the Catholic Church discriminates - just as every single person on planet Earth does - because not every single person is going to live up to everyone's standards.
If a Catholic marries someone who does not recognize the authority of the Vatican - the Catholic Church is under no obligation to bless that union.
If a couple does not agree with the Catholic Church's doctrine concerning marriage and sexuality - then the Catholic Church is under no obligation to extend any benefit of membership to that couple.
Why would that couple want the Church's blessing anyway considering that they do no agree with the Church? Makes no sense to me.
What else would it be?
And everything that you and I are sharing here is also just opinion - although you express yours as if it were fact.
This was all your opinion - yet without any of the language indicative of such - which could be a violation of forum rules.
A definition for the word "immoral" is "not conforming to accepted standards of morality" - which makes the word completely subjective - because to the Catholic Church - which has strict "standards of morality" concerning sexuality and marriage - homosexual behavior is immoral.
A definition for the word "compassion" is "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others" - which also makes this word completely subjective - since everyone's personal metric of what is or is not "suffering" and "misfortune" will be different - those who adhere to the doctrines of the Catholic Church would consider someone acting on their same-sex attraction to be a "suffering" or "misfortune" - so out of "sympathetic pity and concern for others" (i.e. "compassion") they would do what they could to teach people not to succumb to those tendencies - to avoid harming themselves by committing sin.
Not agreeing with someone's behavior is not immoral. Compassion is not accepting everything that everyone does.
Needless to say - many in the Catholic Church may not consider same-sex attractions to be "natural and reasonable" - therefore they believe that they are teaching against that which is unnatural and unreasonable.
Either way - explain how it is "compassionate" to lie to people by telling them you approve of their behavior when you actually do not?
How is it compassionate to sit idly by while people are doing things that you believe are destructive to them and to society as a whole?
I personally do not care if same-sex couples decide to tie the knot - yet if I did care - I would not be any less moral or compassionate.
As you said before - I am operating out of a position of indignation - not fear.
And the "slippery slope" argument has been proven to be true to regards to religious freedom over and over again all throughout the world.
And since you believe that the Catholic Church can choose who should or should not be baptized - then you must also believe that they should be able to choose which unions they wish to bless.
If not - then you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
A protest is an objection which is itself a challenge or opposition.
If you are not advocating for change - then you are not protesting.
Also - the Vatican peacefully refusing to bless a union is not forcing anything on anyone either.
Another opinion stated as if it were fact.
You and I may believe that the Vatican has no authority at all - but the Catholic Church believes that it has been given authority by God to act in His name.
Therefore - any "blessing" given by these renegade priests is of none effect - because the Vatican does not approve of them - making them pointless.
It is simple posturing to fan the flames of outrage and to make themselves feel superior through virtue signaling. To crucify by the authority of the court of public opinion.
"Decent" is another subjective term.
As I said before - these priests have every right to protest whatever they want - but they should be removed - and their protestation is not evidence that the Vatican is engaging in anything immoral - as you claimed.
Again - that is merely your opinion - stated as if it were fact - because the word "immoral" is completely subjective.
I find nothing immoral about the Vatican's refusal to bless unions they believe run contrary to their teachings.
Leaving the priestcraft in protest would have met that goal.
But abusing your position as a priest in an attempt to besmirch the Church and teachings you claim to have devoted your life to?
It is selfish to abuse the authority given you by using it contrary to it's intended purpose.
A police officer who uses his badge in order to break the law - even if he/she perceives that law to be "unjust" or "immoral" - is a person who is abusing their authority for their own selfish gain.
And again - you have provided no evidence that the Vatican's refusal to bless same-sex unions is unjust or immoral.
I do not believe that you are a person who can be reasoned with if you believe that conservatives are in any sort of position of power in 2021.
However - the Catholic Church's position on sexuality and marriage have been around pretty much since it's founding and are well grounded in the Bible.
So - I am inclined to believe that it is less about fear of opposing conservative powerhouses *chuckle* and more about staying true to their founding principles.
I know people don't think that's a good idea in 2021 - but some people think that old and unpopular ideas can still be true.
At least you tried.
Last edited:
Your opinions on the 'true purpose' of Mosaic law are totally irrelevant. Absolutely meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned. We know that our sexual conduct falls under the universally biding moral law because the New Testament explicitly states that sexual sin disqualifies a person from salvation. And what is sexual sin? Any sexual act whatsoever outside the sacramental union of one man and one woman for life.
Did God REALLY say...
There has never been any question in the Christian tradition that the scriptural testimony categorically condemns same-sex acts. That scripture doesn't speak in modern abstractions of 'sexual orientation' is a red-herring. At the end of the day, what we're seeing with this whole issue is itching ears. Fewer and fewer people will tolerate sound doctrine because the truth convicts their consciences. We want to live for gratification in the here and now and not the glory that Christ has promised. And so some read scripture with an agenda that sin isn't REALLY sin.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ah, yes..... This is what I wrap myself in for comfort on dark cold nights. But in the warmth of the morning sun I'll stuff it back under the bed and set out on my missions for yet more mammon.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No, they are not.
The purpose of those laws is the point where you lost your compass and wandered off somewhere else.
You cannot stuff the laws of Moses in to the bin, only to drag them out again when it suits you.
And there it is, the point where so many followers of Jesus turn and follow some other bloke's letters ...... your ideas about 'universally binding moral law' are reason enough to encourage the people to walk away from them.
They are an impost.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The Vatican already is pretty gay tbf. Quite a number of the artists and sculptors whose glorification of God is expressed through the majesty of St Peter’s Basilica and the Cistine Chapel, were as openly gay as it was possible to be in Renaissance Rome.
Yes, they are.
In a bin? The Old Testament religion ceased to exist when the Romans destroyed the temple. Which is fine from a Christian point of view because the Old Testament religion and the Mosaic Law existed to foreshadow Christ whose law we are now under. Christ, not Moses. And what you think about the Mosaic Law and its purpose is irrelevant. That the Church can't do gay 'blessing ceremonies' has nothing to do with Leviticus, but with what we know to be the truth about the moral use of our sexual powers. Sex is the human participation in the creation of new souls. To misuse this power for mere gratification is a sin.
Let them walk. Every one of us has free will and we do not have to walk the narrow path to salvation if we do not wish to. But when we die and stand before God in his judgment seat we won't be able to plead that it just wasn't fashionable enough. God will respect our choice.
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member
To avoid confusion, I was using the word "gay" in the second meaning of the word here. Thanks to @Spiderman I was in such a "gay" mood Saturday
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well at least we won't be reading any OT quotations from you.
If you think that clinging to Pauline ideas about sex, he who was either asexual or ranting away to disguise any other desires of his, in dismissal of what Jesus did or said, and you think your God will find favour with that...... then good luck with it.
That's not Christianity imo, it's Paulinism. Even Pope's disregarded all that nonsense.
It's not that simple. While the cult of the Old Law is no longer in force the Old Testament remains the word of God. It is still therefore authoritative revelation.
The entirety of the New Testament is inspired by God. So when the New Testament makes it clear that those in sexual sin will not inherent the kingdom of God that was not the mere opinion of a man but divine revelation inspired by that same God we read about in the Gospel accounts. That you (and most) don't like what those words have to say is irrelevant. That it will be widely rejected is actually expected.
There's no such thing as 'Paulinism'. That's simply a convenient construct of your own imagination. I beleive that there's only the Catholic faith as revealed by God and taught though the ages. That many in the Church seek to obscure that faith or dilute it with worldly doctrines is simply an indictment of our current era and not of the faith.
Last edited:
He is considered to be “Christ’s vicar on Earth”. Papal Infallibility applies only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, lit. “from the chair”. The chair is the chair of St. Peter.