Huh? Lots of gays and lesbians have kids from prior hetero relationships. They're not sterile.
-
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!
Pope Francis allows priests to bless same-sex couples (not marriage)
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
I ask because the Church cannot approve of sexual behavior outside of marriage. If they were celibate, I can see this being acceptable.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Helping the poor, sick and marginalized was Jesus' mission. People spout out OT verses, not knowing the context.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Yahweh should not be murdering people then. The Bible doesn't say abortion is murder though. It's only a property crime against a woman's husband, unless the woman dies, then it's murder.
This is a religious debates thread.
So, christianly speaking, abortion is murder.
If it were a political thread, I would say: abortion is a right that women have to determine themselves. It's a freedom of choice.
The document, Fiducia Supplicans, defines "blessing" in a number of ways, beginning by reflecting on the meaning
of blessings, which it describes as being “among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals.” It considers blessings from a liturgical, biblical, and “theological-pastoral” perspective.
Regarding the liturgical meaning of blessings, it says that a liturgical blessing “requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.” So, no, same-sex couples cannot be beneficiaries of a "liturgical blessing." I provided a link to the actual document on the Vatican website, above, so you can see for yourself what it says.
You also need to understand the unimaginable implications of this gesture, done after Cardinal Becciu was sentenced to jail for embezzlement and aggravated fraud.
It means it's a Church that respects love and brotherhood, and that sins of sexual nature are forgivable and expiable.
Sins against social justice, the sins of fraud, robbery and treason are unforgivable.
Catholics don't believe in some Protestant ideology that says all sins are equal. There are sins which are serious, and there are sins that are less serious. Then there are the expiable and forgivable sins. Hence Purgatory.
It means it's a Church that respects love and brotherhood, and that sins of sexual nature are forgivable and expiable.
Sins against social justice, the sins of fraud, robbery and treason are unforgivable.
Catholics don't believe in some Protestant ideology that says all sins are equal. There are sins which are serious, and there are sins that are less serious. Then there are the expiable and forgivable sins. Hence Purgatory.
PureX
Veteran Member
Seems a bit silly to me. If they lived by the Spirit instead of the law they wouldn't have these kinds of dilemmas.
In fairness, it must be incredibly difficult to try to deal with the variety of conflicts that comes with an institution of the size of the Roman Catholic Church.
So, yeah. A baby step. Very much a baby step in the right direction.
There is only so much resistance to necessary, obviously proper moral change that any organization can offer, particularly when it wants to be perceived as some form of reference for morality. Plenty of moral retrogrades use the Catholic Church as a power base to exert influence, and they keep making the Church a reactionary, backwards institution. But appeasing them too much makes the Church increasingly vulnerable to criticism, unconvincing and irrelevant.
So baby steps are both utterly necessary and the most that we can reasonably expect. Without them it would be impossible to keep attempting to present an organization that hinders and hurts moral advancement as a promoter of morality.
So, yeah. A baby step. Very much a baby step in the right direction.
There is only so much resistance to necessary, obviously proper moral change that any organization can offer, particularly when it wants to be perceived as some form of reference for morality. Plenty of moral retrogrades use the Catholic Church as a power base to exert influence, and they keep making the Church a reactionary, backwards institution. But appeasing them too much makes the Church increasingly vulnerable to criticism, unconvincing and irrelevant.
So baby steps are both utterly necessary and the most that we can reasonably expect. Without them it would be impossible to keep attempting to present an organization that hinders and hurts moral advancement as a promoter of morality.
Last edited:
You should read the actual document. Such blessings don't condone the sinful elements of the relationships.
That's simply not true. People can be in all kinds of unrepentant sinful situations in their lives and still look to the Church as a source of moral guidance, not to mention hope and healing and love. The thing is, many conservative Christians still see gayness as a worse sin than all the others. Their own hearts consumed with totally unrepentant greed, gluttony, malice, sloth, self-righteousness - oh, that's different! The gays though, they're really bad. But Christian excuses for certain sins and emphasis on the awfulness of others has nothing to do with the Gospel, and usually everything to do with the culture and politics of the time.
But clearly their strategy is failing, because people aren't receiving that message. Even confession is seen as a kind of reward that one has to earn by checking the right boxes. This is precisely the mentality Francis is trying to undo. The Church is supposed to be a vehicle of grace, which means an unearned and undeserved gift.
One of the chief messages of Jesus in the Gospels is how radically unfair and undeserved the Kingdom of God is. Reread the parable of the workers in Matthew 20. Reread the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Reread Matthew 7:
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
If I go to Mass today and walk forward during Communion, the priest will freely give me a blessing if I don't receive the Eucharist. This doesn't in any way legitimize the parts of my life the Church regards as sinful, nor has the Church ever seen it as such. The blessing of couples in sinful relationships is not that different, from the explanation I read.
Seen this way, this isn't some fundamental departure from dogma. It's a re-emphasis of a central aspect of the Christian Gospel that's been present from its earliest days.
As I said, there's more than one way to see it.
In Catholic dogma, you have something called grave matter. But for sin itself, you need three elements. Grave matter is the "tinder" of sin, so to speak, but not sin itself.
"three conditions must exist at the same time.
It must be of a grave matter;
It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
It must be committed with full consent. [ Full consent means to do it "voluntarily."]" ( C.C.C. # 1857)
In the concrete circumstances of a person's life, the need for companionship and to express sexual urges that are innate to a person, would likely mean that for many or even most people, that's not the case. Only God determines that and an individual person forms their conscience in accordance with what it tells them and by respecting, if they are Catholic, revealed truth as earnestly as possible and heeding the guidance of their pastor, the priest.
Now, an individual homosexual relationship could, for instance, have more perfect qualities and be closer to the church's ideal of marriage than a bad heterosexual one that involves abuse, unfaithfulness or anything else that offends the sanctity of marital love.
Those elements of holiness and truth are real in that relationship, implanted by the Holy Spirit, and could help the same-sex partners grow in holiness as they "form their own consciences" and work out their salvation with, rather than against, the pastoral guidance of the Church.
Just as you can be baptized by implicit desire in complex situations that don't permit actual baptism, such as being raised in a different faith or sincerely convinced that another religious path is true for innumerable reasons that excuse, so to can a same-sex union be implicitly oriented towards the kind of grace conferred by marriage, without ever being so in the Church's eyes.
Even though the church cannot for sacramental reasons, requiring as per Ephesians a female phenotype and a male phenotype in sacramental sex (modelling Church as Body of Christ and Christ) doctrinally and liturgically recognise any union as a sacramental marriage except that type of one, other unions - such as heterosexual cohabitation or what the Church traditionally called concubinage and tolerated in the first millennium or indeed same-sex civil unions - can still have elements of holiness and truth that lead the partners on their path to salvation.
They can still have saving grace, even in a situation that's objectively not in line with the church's doctrinal standard. The parameters of this were all laid out back in 2016 in Francis's apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. So this is just a final "working out" of the groundwork already set, pastorally, in that document by the papal magisterium.
What's clear is that as this papacy reaches it's maturity, after a decade on the Chair of St. Peter, things are definitely crystallising in advance of the handover to the next pontificate.
To cut a long story short, the new pastoral guidelines are good and doctrinally sound (of course!), perfectly consonant with the church's sacred tradition and are what I've been hoping would come out for a long time. Of course a pastoral blessing should be possible.
"three conditions must exist at the same time.
It must be of a grave matter;
It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
It must be committed with full consent. [ Full consent means to do it "voluntarily."]" ( C.C.C. # 1857)
In the concrete circumstances of a person's life, the need for companionship and to express sexual urges that are innate to a person, would likely mean that for many or even most people, that's not the case. Only God determines that and an individual person forms their conscience in accordance with what it tells them and by respecting, if they are Catholic, revealed truth as earnestly as possible and heeding the guidance of their pastor, the priest.
Now, an individual homosexual relationship could, for instance, have more perfect qualities and be closer to the church's ideal of marriage than a bad heterosexual one that involves abuse, unfaithfulness or anything else that offends the sanctity of marital love.
Those elements of holiness and truth are real in that relationship, implanted by the Holy Spirit, and could help the same-sex partners grow in holiness as they "form their own consciences" and work out their salvation with, rather than against, the pastoral guidance of the Church.
Just as you can be baptized by implicit desire in complex situations that don't permit actual baptism, such as being raised in a different faith or sincerely convinced that another religious path is true for innumerable reasons that excuse, so to can a same-sex union be implicitly oriented towards the kind of grace conferred by marriage, without ever being so in the Church's eyes.
Even though the church cannot for sacramental reasons, requiring as per Ephesians a female phenotype and a male phenotype in sacramental sex (modelling Church as Body of Christ and Christ) doctrinally and liturgically recognise any union as a sacramental marriage except that type of one, other unions - such as heterosexual cohabitation or what the Church traditionally called concubinage and tolerated in the first millennium or indeed same-sex civil unions - can still have elements of holiness and truth that lead the partners on their path to salvation.
They can still have saving grace, even in a situation that's objectively not in line with the church's doctrinal standard. The parameters of this were all laid out back in 2016 in Francis's apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. So this is just a final "working out" of the groundwork already set, pastorally, in that document by the papal magisterium.
What's clear is that as this papacy reaches it's maturity, after a decade on the Chair of St. Peter, things are definitely crystallising in advance of the handover to the next pontificate.
To cut a long story short, the new pastoral guidelines are good and doctrinally sound (of course!), perfectly consonant with the church's sacred tradition and are what I've been hoping would come out for a long time. Of course a pastoral blessing should be possible.
Last edited:
I also think it's good that the document so clearly distinguishes such pastoral blessings of civilly married/partnered/unmarried gay or civilly married/unmarried hetero couples from sacramental liturgical marriage.
In my church, as per Ephesians, there are exegetically insurmountable parameters that make a liturgical gay marriage impossible. That's not what this is about.
It's not about marriage - our dogma on that is settled and de fide.
This is about pastorally supporting, nurturing and welcoming homosexual members of our community who like heterosexual members are sincerely trying to live good, holy lives and like heterosexuals have sexual urges and a need for companionship. They may understand, as Amoris Laetitia noted back in 2016, the "rule" and ideal of chastity but in the concrete circumstances of their lives not be able to live like that.
And the relationship they have with another homosexual person may have so many goods that are reflective of the church's doctrine of marriage that would be lost if sexual intimacy ended, thus perhaps harming their spiritual development and salvation rather than aiding it.
So in taking this move, the Church is looking to effectively "baptize" - to protect, nurture and embrace those dimensions of these relationships and help it's homosexual members, in their lives together, live good and flourishing and happy lives.
Everything was laid out in Amoris Laetitia back in 2016. It's pragmatic, it's pastoral, it's Christlike.
In my church, as per Ephesians, there are exegetically insurmountable parameters that make a liturgical gay marriage impossible. That's not what this is about.
It's not about marriage - our dogma on that is settled and de fide.
This is about pastorally supporting, nurturing and welcoming homosexual members of our community who like heterosexual members are sincerely trying to live good, holy lives and like heterosexuals have sexual urges and a need for companionship. They may understand, as Amoris Laetitia noted back in 2016, the "rule" and ideal of chastity but in the concrete circumstances of their lives not be able to live like that.
And the relationship they have with another homosexual person may have so many goods that are reflective of the church's doctrine of marriage that would be lost if sexual intimacy ended, thus perhaps harming their spiritual development and salvation rather than aiding it.
So in taking this move, the Church is looking to effectively "baptize" - to protect, nurture and embrace those dimensions of these relationships and help it's homosexual members, in their lives together, live good and flourishing and happy lives.
Everything was laid out in Amoris Laetitia back in 2016. It's pragmatic, it's pastoral, it's Christlike.
Last edited:
Colt
Well-Known Member
In recognition of the Vatican's capitulation President Biden issued an executive order allowing (D)'s to have gay sex in any of the breakout rooms in the Capital building. However, the directive stops short of allowing sex during hearings or in the Congress or Senate when in session. The National Association of Bestiality NAB released a statement that the directive doesn't go deep enough rather it teases around the rim of the issue! "We feel its anyone's right to do anything anywhere at any time on the peoples public property!" NAB president David Frottage invoked the slogan "from Pennsylvania Ave to the Potomac"!
The attempt at funny doesn't erase the hateful intent.
Amen, I don't find it humorous in the least.
When your Messiah pays off a stripper and brags about sexually assaulting women, you don't care. When some low-level staffer nobody has ever heard of has sex at work, it's a national crisis. We got it.
For anyone interested, see footnote 345 in paragraph 302 of Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis from 2016, which refers to a 2000 statement by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts called Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried.
The passage in Amoris Laetitia to which the footnote is attached states "...a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgement about the imputability or culpability of the person." That can refer to divorcees, unmarried heterosexual sex or homosexual sex.
Amoris Laetitia goes on - "Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace...
Many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” [celibacy] which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of [sexual] intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51)
Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, pastors are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations"
This is not a new theology. In the early church, concubinage - an unmarried sexual relationship between a heterosexual couple - was often tolerated by the Church along these lines, eg from the seventeenth canon of the Council of Toledo in 400 AD:
en.m.wikipedia.org
"If a Christian has a believing wife and also a concubine, he may not be admitted to communion; but if he has no wife and only one concubine, he may be admitted"
In our modern gender egalitarian culture, we call what they knew as concubinage "cohabitation", basically (although concubinage in the bible is more looser even than that, the Romans formalized it a bit more).
The passage in Amoris Laetitia to which the footnote is attached states "...a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgement about the imputability or culpability of the person." That can refer to divorcees, unmarried heterosexual sex or homosexual sex.
Amoris Laetitia goes on - "Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace...
Many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” [celibacy] which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of [sexual] intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51)
Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, pastors are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations"
This is not a new theology. In the early church, concubinage - an unmarried sexual relationship between a heterosexual couple - was often tolerated by the Church along these lines, eg from the seventeenth canon of the Council of Toledo in 400 AD:
First Council of Toledo - Wikipedia
"If a Christian has a believing wife and also a concubine, he may not be admitted to communion; but if he has no wife and only one concubine, he may be admitted"
In our modern gender egalitarian culture, we call what they knew as concubinage "cohabitation", basically (although concubinage in the bible is more looser even than that, the Romans formalized it a bit more).
Last edited:
Colt
Well-Known Member
Obviously, the Left lacks a sense of humor except when making jokes about (R)'s or Christians. Trumps an idiot! The Bidens are crooks! America deserves much better but with Biden being the best you have to offer I can understand your continued jealousy over Trumps popularity.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Naw, you just still take yourself too seriously! And you still bring your deep seated hatred for Christians into every conversation you have with anyone about anything.