Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

+1. I get that it’s just a slogan but saying “it’s natural” or “born this way!” doesn’t get you anywhere. Psychopaths are also born that way. And the slogan doesn’t even make any sense for all LGBTIAQ+.... issues. Transgender people are... born with the wrong genitalia apparently so they can’t shout “born this way!” If you disagree with the Catholic Church, that’s 100% fine but its theology may be more consistent than your personal philosophy.

No responses to this...? Yup, that’s what I thought - mostly everyone is just screaming pedophiles! and homophobes! and can’t be bothered to learn any theology.

Except for the people who aren't screaming that, whom you ignore.


According to the Catholic Church, it is not a sin to be mentally ill. So it's really hard to understand the point you are making.

You’re not being clear. Do you think LGBTIA+ people are mentally ill? Regardless, the church doesn’t teach that being LGBTIAQ+ is a sin. As a PP pointed out there are certainly homosexual priests. The Church talks about certain acts being sinful.

You said that Catholic theology is more consistent than "natural" or "born this way" arguments. And somehow you imagined the "gotcha" is psychopaths! As though "born a certain way" logic entitles someone to deprive someone else of their life. No. Being born a certain way allows you to live your life that way, as long as it does not interfere the rights of others. That's Locke. Two dudes kissing does not harm me or you.

Again, not the OP’s argument. But if your point is everything is of equal moral value as long as it doesn’t hurt a third party, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I am the OP. And no, that’s not my point. If I could prove that procreative sex deters aggression, that would be a positive good, not merely a lack of harm.

So what is your point? Homosexual sex is moral because deters aggression? Okay.

No, I can see the close-minded religious do not want an honest discussion.

You definitely are the one running away from honest discussion.

According to Aquinas, if I proved this, it would mean that non-procreative sex is a moral good according to Secunda Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae.

I thought you said the above wasn’t your point, but now it maybe is, if it’s true that it deters aggression, which you seem unsure of. As I said before... okay.

You made the leap from what I said, "non-procreative sex deters aggression", to "homosexual sex deters aggression". I don't have to prove #2 in order to establish #1. And establishing #1 invalidates the logic of today's announcement.

[Anonymous]

But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

[Anonymous]

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.

Catholics care what the magisterium thinks, not what any random scholar thinks, so yes it is clear.

[Anonymous]

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.

Catholics care what the magisterium thinks, not what any random scholar thinks, so yes it is clear.

Of course it's clear if you assume they are always right. The problem is that even most Catholics do not assume they are always right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

I haven't even attempted to establish #1 on this thread yet. All of the back and forth so far has been on the premise that, according to Aquinas, if non-procreative sex is a good, then it is not sinful. And I am talking to a bunch of (apparently) lifelong Catholics who never managed to read Aquinas, so it's going very slowly. At my Catholic high school we got drilled on Aquinas. I guess times have changed...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

I haven't even attempted to establish #1 on this thread yet. All of the back and forth so far has been on the premise that, according to Aquinas, if non-procreative sex is a good, then it is not sinful. And I am talking to a bunch of (apparently) lifelong Catholics who never managed to read Aquinas, so it's going very slowly. At my Catholic high school we got drilled on Aquinas. I guess times have changed...

You’ve consistently been moving goalposts and your OP hardly demonstrates your supposed mastery of Aquinas. But cool story bro.

[Anonymous]

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.

Actually, it's all quite clear. You just don't like what it says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

I haven't even attempted to establish #1 on this thread yet. All of the back and forth so far has been on the premise that, according to Aquinas, if non-procreative sex is a good, then it is not sinful. And I am talking to a bunch of (apparently) lifelong Catholics who never managed to read Aquinas, so it's going very slowly. At my Catholic high school we got drilled on Aquinas. I guess times have changed...

What a snob you are. As I lifelong Catholic, I e been to Mass over 2000 times, attended 12 years of CCD, received 4 Holy Sacraments, and taught 3 years. In none of that did I ever read Aquinas—so apparently the Church didn’t think it was essential to my life as a Catholic.

[Anonymous]

I think all that the Pope’s bigoted statement is going to do is embolden the majority of Catholics in demanding change and encourage even more priests to conduct same-sex ceremonies. In a way, the challenge to the true faithful is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don’t follow Paul and I don’t believe God speaks through his writings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

I haven't even attempted to establish #1 on this thread yet. All of the back and forth so far has been on the premise that, according to Aquinas, if non-procreative sex is a good, then it is not sinful. And I am talking to a bunch of (apparently) lifelong Catholics who never managed to read Aquinas, so it's going very slowly. At my Catholic high school we got drilled on Aquinas. I guess times have changed...

What a snob you are. As I lifelong Catholic, I e been to Mass over 2000 times, attended 12 years of CCD, received 4 Holy Sacraments, and taught 3 years. In none of that did I ever read Aquinas—so apparently the Church didn’t think it was essential to my life as a Catholic.

He's literally the most important theologian in Catholic history, cited by every pope in your lifetime an in dozens of papal encyclicals as important as Rerum Novarum, Gaudium et Spes, Quadrogesimo Anno, and more. You know, the stuff that decides what goes in your catechism.

but hey, here's your catechism. Which I bet you haven't read in 20 years, either. It's been revised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you haven’t established #1 at all (or even tried to — you seem to not really know what you think)... so no, it does not invalidate the logic of today’s announcement.

I haven't even attempted to establish #1 on this thread yet. All of the back and forth so far has been on the premise that, according to Aquinas, if non-procreative sex is a good, then it is not sinful. And I am talking to a bunch of (apparently) lifelong Catholics who never managed to read Aquinas, so it's going very slowly. At my Catholic high school we got drilled on Aquinas. I guess times have changed...

You’ve consistently been moving goalposts and your OP hardly demonstrates your supposed mastery of Aquinas. But cool story bro.

Nice insult. Speak in the language of Aquinas and I'll consider you serious.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?