Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions

[Anonymous]

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

Where is it clear?

Paul writes about it in Romans. The Old Testament also condemns homosexual practice, and in several places defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Scholars disagree on how to read 1:26. Some say it is a prohibition against sodomy, regardless of genders involved. So, not clear.

A bit of a tangent here, but I’m curious. Is 1:26 the reference some people use to justify homosexual relations between women and not condone it between men? I’ve heard some people go as far as saying that women cannot be homosexual because they cannot sodomize one another. I think other catechetical elements frown upon sexual acts between any two people outside of marriage, so it’s a moot point as far as the church is concerned.

I'm not familiar with that.

But I find it distressing that a church of a billion people stands for discrimination against gays, when they know they have nearly all broken Church law regarding sex and reproduction. Sex is ordained for reproduction, and "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." Nearly every Catholic woman of reproductive age reports having used artificial birth control. I'm sure some think this is justified because they were (nearly) sure they were going to get married, or because in their hearts they know God does not want them to have a fifth child. Or IVF? The Church condemns it and yet Catholic moms will talk about their IVF experiences openly at Church functions! Because how could the church "truly" object to bearing children? God couldn't possibly mean for them to be childless.

Technically, there is nothing wrong with being gay and catholic. But there is a call to live chastely and celibate. Which I know, that is seen as discrimination since straight single people CAN get married in the church. You’re right about the sins again sexuality in general. Yes those people choose those things but technically are still now following the church.

As a catholic, I don’t see how this is surprising to anyone and why anyone who isn’t catholic cares. If you’re gay, there are plenty of Christian ministers who will officiate your wedding. Plenty of churches that will see your marriage as valid in addition to it being legal in this country. Why would you want to be married in a church that doesn’t see gay marriage as valid?

It's not surprising. But if you grow up in a Catholic family and you are gay, you care a lot!

If your Catholic family rejects you because your marriage is an offense against God or they think you are going to hell, you care a lot!

If your family has been Catholic for a millennium and you grew up praying the Rosary and you realize your church is doing an injustice to people, you care!

If you believe in transubstantiation, and there is nowhere else to receive the Eucharist as you know it, you are denied something irreplaceable!

Yes in those situations, that makes sense. But many people just like to criticize the church for it's beliefs for not other reason to criticize. The mormon church doesn't allow gay marriage and I'm sure strict Muslim and Jewish groups don't either. But, only the catholic church gets criticized for it.

Although rare, I'm sure there are gay Catholics who are choosing to live a celibate life and continue to practice their Catholic faith and fully participate in the church in full communion. They accept they won't get married in the church. If someone truly believes in the One Holy Catholic church and is gay, they are likely accept the teachings and not want to be living in sin. Otherwise, there are other churches where they can live a faith in God and feel accepted.

Stop questioning the motives of the posters here. 24% of America was Catholic. I was Catholic. I was raised in a 90% Catholic neighborhood. I studied with the Precious Blood sisters, the Jesuits and the Opus Dei. I was in church 6 days a week. The most meaningful experiences of my childhood were with the Church. Priests were my heroes.

But over the years, the priests are all gone - married or gay. One showed up in the abuse reports. I watched my gay friend struggle with his faith and his family. I bring these things up with an earnest interest in debating the content of papal encyclicals and statements from CDF and to discuss the history of women in the church, of celibacy in the clergy, birth control, homosexuality. All I hear is trite responses like "The Church is not a Democracy" or "join the Episcopalians". I tried the Episcopalians. I had to, because I couldn't defend the Church to my wife when the Church isn't even beginning to open its heart. But it doesn't feel right. Services don't feel real.

This is how a 1,000 year long unbroken line of Catholics comes to an end.

Maybe because Episcopal churches don't have that little red light that means Jesus is there?

Seriously. there's no going back, and the Episcopal church is as close as you can get without current former Catholics and dissenting priests starting their own parishes.

Now there's an idea!

Regrettably, I am finding it hard to trust any religious denominations. And after the last few years, I am beginning to question whether they cause people to lead better lives. Images of people pressing their heads against a giant cross as they attack the Capitol are hard to erase. And Jesus' words about how to treat foreigners is unambiguous and yet I see little reflection of that among Christians as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

Sex must be procreative AND unitive. If the procreate part isn’t possible, it’s still unitive and designed for man and woman. That’s how NFP works. A woman isn’t fertile everyday but sex is allowed in the infertile part of the cycle even if needing to avoid pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

But you can’t say that it or you’re not being sensitive or inclusive or whatever. People want the church to change their beliefs and teachings to fit this other mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

Wait.. what?.. where did you get the 6000 from? Are you referring to Neolith, if so this is random and inaccurate.. otherwise
also a question what do you think is observed before?...

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies.

was it possible before then?

[Anonymous]

In the beginning of time there was a need to multiply, fine. But now there is an opposite need and so why keep insisting on the fact that two people in love can not get married only because they are of the same sex but it is okay if they are of opposite sex even if one of them can not have children.. therefore as a couple they can not multiply directly either, yet if the indirect offspring is fine for those then why wouldn't it be different for the gay couple.. ??? this is really insane.

Time for update of the concept of the marriage. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

This is why I reject religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the beginning of time there was a need to multiply, fine. But now there is an opposite need and so why keep insisting on the fact that two people in love can not get married only because they are of the same sex but it is okay if they are of opposite sex even if one of them can not have children.. therefore as a couple they can not multiply directly either, yet if the indirect offspring is fine for those then why wouldn't it be different for the gay couple.. ??? this is really insane.

Time for update of the concept of the marriage. Seriously.

For old people that’s one thing. But many couples don’t know they can’t have children until have they are married and they try to have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

Sex must be procreative AND unitive. If the procreate part isn’t possible, it’s still unitive and designed for man and woman. That’s how NFP works. A woman isn’t fertile everyday but sex is allowed in the infertile part of the cycle even if needing to avoid pregnancy.

Sex between gay people can be unitive. You're still assuming without proof that it has to be between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

But you can’t say that it or you’re not being sensitive or inclusive or whatever. People want the church to change their beliefs and teachings to fit this other mindset.

Once upon a time the people wanted the church to change and stop persecuting scientists. Turned out the people were right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

Sex must be procreative AND unitive. If the procreate part isn’t possible, it’s still unitive and designed for man and woman. That’s how NFP works. A woman isn’t fertile everyday but sex is allowed in the infertile part of the cycle even if needing to avoid pregnancy.

Sex between gay people can be unitive. You're still assuming without proof that it has to be between a man and a woman.

I guess it’s just based on what sex is between a man and woman that involve the two different body parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

Sex must be procreative AND unitive. If the procreate part isn’t possible, it’s still unitive and designed for man and woman. That’s how NFP works. A woman isn’t fertile everyday but sex is allowed in the infertile part of the cycle even if needing to avoid pregnancy.

Sex between gay people can be unitive. You're still assuming without proof that it has to be between a man and a woman.

I guess it’s just based on what sex is between a man and woman that involve the two different body parts.

Unitive in Catholic doctrine means bringing a couple closer together. It does not say anything about body parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Scholars disagree on how to read 1:26. Some say it is a prohibition against sodomy, regardless of genders involved. So, not clear.

A bit of a tangent here, but I’m curious. Is 1:26 the reference some people use to justify homosexual relations between women and not condone it between men? I’ve heard some people go as far as saying that women cannot be homosexual because they cannot sodomize one another. I think other catechetical elements frown upon sexual acts between any two people outside of marriage, so it’s a moot point as far as the church is concerned.

I'm not familiar with that.

But I find it distressing that a church of a billion people stands for discrimination against gays, when they know they have nearly all broken Church law regarding sex and reproduction. Sex is ordained for reproduction, and "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." Nearly every Catholic woman of reproductive age reports having used artificial birth control. I'm sure some think this is justified because they were (nearly) sure they were going to get married, or because in their hearts they know God does not want them to have a fifth child. Or IVF? The Church condemns it and yet Catholic moms will talk about their IVF experiences openly at Church functions! Because how could the church "truly" object to bearing children? God couldn't possibly mean for them to be childless.


Technically, there is nothing wrong with being gay and catholic. But there is a call to live chastely and celibate. Which I know, that is seen as discrimination since straight single people CAN get married in the church. You’re right about the sins again sexuality in general. Yes those people choose those things but technically are still now following the church.

As a catholic, I don’t see how this is surprising to anyone and why anyone who isn’t catholic cares. If you’re gay, there are plenty of Christian ministers who will officiate your wedding. Plenty of churches that will see your marriage as valid in addition to it being legal in this country. Why would you want to be married in a church that doesn’t see gay marriage as valid?

It's not surprising. But if you grow up in a Catholic family and you are gay, you care a lot!

If your Catholic family rejects you because your marriage is an offense against God or they think you are going to hell, you care a lot!

If your family has been Catholic for a millennium and you grew up praying the Rosary and you realize your church is doing an injustice to people, you care!

If you believe in transubstantiation, and there is nowhere else to receive the Eucharist as you know it, you are denied something irreplaceable!



Yes in those situations, that makes sense. But many people just like to criticize the church for it's beliefs for not other reason to criticize. The mormon church doesn't allow gay marriage and I'm sure strict Muslim and Jewish groups don't either. But, only the catholic church gets criticized for it.

Although rare, I'm sure there are gay Catholics who are choosing to live a celibate life and continue to practice their Catholic faith and fully participate in the church in full communion. They accept they won't get married in the church. If someone truly believes in the One Holy Catholic church and is gay, they are likely accept the teachings and not want to be living in sin. Otherwise, there are other churches where they can live a faith in God and feel accepted.

Stop questioning the motives of the posters here. 24% of America was Catholic. I was Catholic. I was raised in a 90% Catholic neighborhood. I studied with the Precious Blood sisters, the Jesuits and the Opus Dei. I was in church 6 days a week. The most meaningful experiences of my childhood were with the Church. Priests were my heroes.

But over the years, the priests are all gone - married or gay. One showed up in the abuse reports. I watched my gay friend struggle with his faith and his family. I bring these things up with an earnest interest in debating the content of papal encyclicals and statements from CDF and to discuss the history of women in the church, of celibacy in the clergy, birth control, homosexuality. All I hear is trite responses like "The Church is not a Democracy" or "join the Episcopalians". I tried the Episcopalians. I had to, because I couldn't defend the Church to my wife when the Church isn't even beginning to open its heart. But it doesn't feel right. Services don't feel real.

This is how a 1,000 year long unbroken line of Catholics comes to an end.



Maybe because Episcopal churches don't have that little red light that means Jesus is there?

Seriously. there's no going back, and the Episcopal church is as close as you can get without current former Catholics and dissenting priests starting their own parishes.

Now there's an idea!

Regrettably, I am finding it hard to trust any religious denominations. And after the last few years, I am beginning to question whether they cause people to lead better lives. Images of people pressing their heads against a giant cross as they attack the Capitol are hard to erase. And Jesus' words about how to treat foreigners is unambiguous and yet I see little reflection of that among Christians as a whole.

You're sounding more and more like a humanist - a person who cares about people but who doesn't believe in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So everything hangs on the assumption that Jesus "would have" condemned homosexuality, even though he said nothing about it. And even though he rejected the Old Law.

You make an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) that 'because Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality, it is not a sin.' Jesus did not mention wife beating or bestiality so those are okay then?

Of course not.

It is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Not only that, even from a non-religious standpoint it is abnormal.

--True Fact--

It is biologically impossible for two people of the same sex "mating" with one another to produce offspring.

This is observed science with over 6,000 years of direct evidence that 2 people of the same sex cannot produce babies. It is biologically impossible. For procreation to occur, it requires the sperm from a male and an egg from a female.

This is what is dividing the church: will Christians call out an obvious sin like homosexuality, or will they out of fear try to get along with the evil world by saying, "Oh, it's okay, not a big deal...blah blah blah, Jesus did not specifically mention it..."

When people refuse to accept that God made us male and female, it is rebellion against God. It is why Jesus will say to them "Depart from me you lawless ones." It says in scripture God gives these people over to a reprobate mind.

Even children understand it takes a man and a woman to make babies because it is such an elementary concept backed up by direct observation from nature. But wicked elements in our culture, whose home base is in the Democratic party, want to teach these children something different from the truth, hence, you see all the transgender drama going on in a vain attempt to normalize the abnormal.

The entire argument for excluding women from the priesthood is based on Jesus' not choosing female Apostles. So the Church is free to infer whatever it wants, whenever it wants? It is wrong to assume that the man who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The Church denies Jesus' body and blood to sinners. Jesus never denied himself to sinners. He never said "you must be in a state of grace to approach me."

The rest? You have assumed without proof that procreation is God's only valid purpose for sex. And yet an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy can marry and have sex and still be Catholic.

Sex must be procreative AND unitive. If the procreate part isn’t possible, it’s still unitive and designed for man and woman. That’s how NFP works. A woman isn’t fertile everyday but sex is allowed in the infertile part of the cycle even if needing to avoid pregnancy.

Sex between gay people can be unitive. You're still assuming without proof that it has to be between a man and a woman.

I guess it’s just based on what sex is between a man and woman that involve the two different body parts.

Unitive in Catholic doctrine means bringing a couple closer together. It does not say anything about body parts.

But it has to be ordered to procreation. No matter the age or state, ordered involves man and woman as intended by nature.