Reply to Fr. James Martin, SJ

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Fr. James Martin, SJ"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Now that Fr Martin’s quote has been exposed here his supporters will scamper away.[/quote]

Do you mean this quote:

[i]Next, when speaking to a male questioner recently, Martin expressed the “hope [that] in 10 years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband”. [/i]

I had never heard of him before this thread, but I’ve practiced Catholicism my whole life and I don’t see anything wrong with that quote. [/quote]

Acceptable!?! It is an intrinsically sinful union.[/quote]

How is it intrinsically sinful? [/quote]

I should add that I do not support abortion because the fetus is obviously killed and women are often harmed psychologically and sometimes physically. Typically because we as a society refuse to offer financial support to poor children.

I do not support the death penalty or euthanasia because they also take lives, typically people we as a society find inconvenient to have in our midst.

Who is harmed when two men marry?[/quote]

Are you a humanist or a Catholic?

What man is harmed when you slander the Lord?  No man directly.

God’s law is violated when two men marry and the victims are the men themselves who may face eternal damnation.[/quote]

So no intrinsic harm. Only picky-choosy interpretations from the Old Testament. Do you eschew shellfish? Never indulge in a bacon cheeseburger? Not wear wool and linen blends? [/quote]

[b]Honestly, I have a hard time thinking that God is going to send a man to Hell because he married another man.  Jesus spent pretty much no time condemning homosexuality, but he said an awful lot about helping the poor, welcoming the stranger, and lifting up the oppressed.  Those things are hard, though, so it's not surprising that a lot of people would rather fixate on policing people's sex lives, which is more exciting and a lot easier.  Specks and planks, people.

Also, hoping that the Church's teaching on same-sex marriage changes isn't heresy.  Not all teachings are dogma.  Teachings changes.  The Church used to condone slavery; now it does not.  It used to permit capital punishment in some circumstances; now it does not.  It used to teach that all non-Catholics were doomed to Hell; now it teaches that non-Catholics may be saved through grace even if they are not formally part of the Church.  It used to ban charging interest for loans; now it does not.  The idea of a separation between Church and State used to be called the "Americanist heresy," and now it's doctrine.  The Church used to permit the sale of indulgences and taught that they were efficacious for the forgiveness of sins; now it does not.  The idea that the Church might someday recognize same-sex marriage is not, to me, problematic at all.  [/quote][/b]

Preach.  Oops . . . forgot that the Church won't allow women to do so.  That's another thing that needs to change.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics