Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 15:02     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
So next we inspect the natural world to guess at his design. Nature is full of homosexuality. Nature is full of creatures that switch genders. Nature is full of creatures that switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. And people can be born with XY chromosomes and female genitalia. What part of God's design was that, and could he please explain who this person can marry? No, you have to arbitrarily throw out these many contradictions in nature because they are not the norm. Guess what? Celibacy is not the norm, and yet the Church allows it and even expects it of some people. Why does the Church create an exception to this idea that procreation is fundamental to our design?


No, nature is not full of homosexuality. It is amazing how people scrape the bottom of the logic barrel in an attempt to justify this sin. Anyone who has been around dogs knows that its mating instinct can be triggered and will attempt to "mate" with your leg. The instances of so-called homosexuality in animals is that when a male had mated with a female and the estruus remained on the mating male, another male animal attempted to mate because its mating instincts were triggered by the chemicals in the estruus. Mammals mate when the female goes into heat.

Because we are in a fallen state, there are mutations and deformities that can cause a person to have genitalia different than the chromosomes. This is not normal, it is an extremely rare condition, but people want to use this as a means for "the exception to prove the rule." Sorry, it does not work that way, any more than you can say schizophrenia is normal.

Homosexuality is a conscious, willful choice. To be one, that person has to deny the biological truth that 2 people of the same sex "mating" with one another cannot produce a baby. Somehow, it has to enter the mind that, "Yes, I produce sperm designed to impregnate a woman but I 'feel/think/believe' otherwise." It is a travesty that our culture does not try to correct these confused people but encourage them in their sexually disoriented state.

No person is "born gay" and there is no "gay gene", just as no person is born a murderer or has a gene for adultery. There are people who have hormonal imbalances that cause, for instance, a male to be less masculine and a woman to be less feminine, and often these people as children are picked on and ridiculed for being different and so they gravitate towards homosexuality. Others are molested as children, or fall victim to propaganda that convinces the confused person to attempt to mate with a member of the same sex.

The sole and only purpose for sperm is to fertilize an egg. Therefore, sex is to be between male and female which is how God designed the human body. We do not produce asexually or any other manner.

Why is this self-evident truth, an elementary basic fact for crying out loud, so difficult for people, most of whom are found in the Democratic party, to understand? I can only conclude such people are evil, their minds seared as with a hot iron, their minds given over to a reprobate mind that refuses to see truth.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 14:25     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what the Pope says?

If you are catholic and you subscribe to bigotry and have to worry about others in their bedrooms shame on you.

The Pope has zero to do with the USA.

Again if you are Catholic mind your business.

Catholics are maxed 22% of the US population. 13% of Catholic Educated Women are part of Q. Yeah you got your own problems.


Fortunately the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Catholic or Evangelical so those numbers are going way up. Talk about a hilarious bait and switch on the left!
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 14:17     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Who cares what the Pope says?

If you are catholic and you subscribe to bigotry and have to worry about others in their bedrooms shame on you.

The Pope has zero to do with the USA.

Again if you are Catholic mind your business.

Catholics are maxed 22% of the US population. 13% of Catholic Educated Women are part of Q. Yeah you got your own problems.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 14:02     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
^^^ Priests are sinners just like everybody else. The Bible says break one commandment you break them all. Christians don’t worship to affirm themselves or have pride in any sin. They worship to recognize that they have fallen short and are greatful for Christ’s lifeline.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 13:33     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize homosexual unions but it does allow homosexual priests.

Seminaries have long been an escape for gay Catholics (nuns, too) - it was far easier to explain to your parents that you wanted to become a priest or a nun rather than shaming the family by admitting homosexuality.


It’s not like the church knows in seminary shows gay.


Nothing worse about Gay people than anyone else. It’s not fair that their sin of homosexual sex is publicly known and not secret like most people. Gay people might go to seminary to attempt to overcome a life of homosexual sex for the safety of their soul for eternity. Obviously many relapse and fail not sure how many succeed but maybe many do.


I guess most the sex abuse cases must be gay priests if they involved boys. I always wondered if a priest really struggled, why not find a woman on sly instead of a kid? Never understood that. Gay and mentally messed up.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 12:08     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize homosexual unions but it does allow homosexual priests.

Seminaries have long been an escape for gay Catholics (nuns, too) - it was far easier to explain to your parents that you wanted to become a priest or a nun rather than shaming the family by admitting homosexuality.


It’s not like the church knows in seminary shows gay.


Nothing worse about Gay people than anyone else. It’s not fair that their sin of homosexual sex is publicly known and not secret like most people. Gay people might go to seminary to attempt to overcome a life of homosexual sex for the safety of their soul for eternity. Obviously many relapse and fail not sure how many succeed but maybe many do.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 11:57     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize homosexual unions but it does allow homosexual priests.

Seminaries have long been an escape for gay Catholics (nuns, too) - it was far easier to explain to your parents that you wanted to become a priest or a nun rather than shaming the family by admitting homosexuality.


It’s not like the church knows in seminary shows gay.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 11:56     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Interesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize homosexual unions but it does allow homosexual priests.

Seminaries have long been an escape for gay Catholics (nuns, too) - it was far easier to explain to your parents that you wanted to become a priest or a nun rather than shaming the family by admitting homosexuality.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 11:47     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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


--------

There's a world of difference between distrust of organized religion and disbelief in God.


-------

Distrust of organized religion is often a stepping stone to disbelieve in god.


Fortunately since the subject is what I personally believe, your point is moot. I am not a humanist. I am a believer who has brought up legitimate issues with the Church and I will not be dismissed by someone who doesn't know me questioning my faith.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 11:02     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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

--------

There's a world of difference between distrust of organized religion and disbelief in God.

-------

Distrust of organized religion is often a stepping stone to disbelieve in god.
Anonymous
Post 03/17/2021 09:48     Subject: Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
That is true. ^ I’m catholic but not super knowledgeable in the catechism to argue these things. And I’m mostly speaking from the biological fact of man and woman reproducing as we expect. But I don’t know why God has allowed these things in his creation.

Fr. mike Schmitz has a lot of good stuff out there and explains things clearly. I’m sure he’s spoken about this as it relates to the Catholic Church.
Anonymous
Post 03/16/2021 23:22     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


"Has to be ordered to procreation" is still unproven. There is plenty of homosexual sex in nature. There is asexual reproduction in nature. I know of one case in the Bible. I know of other cases of parthenogenesis of creatures that normally reproduce sexually. It's science. It happens.


But two men or two woman can’t by nature make a baby. Impossible. Human procreation/reproduction is one man and one woman.


You keep going around and around that the purpose of marriage is to have children - and not by science or adoption or a sperm donor, but "naturally." But you know that the church allows a man and a woman to marry, even if they have no possibility of bearing children. A woman can have no uterus and still be married in the Church. This is a contradiction. What you really mean has nothing to do with procreative anything. It is that men and women belong together, and that one type of sex is right and another is wrong.

The Church declares this to be true without support. They just repeat it over and over again: marriage is between one man and one woman. How do we know this design?

We could look to the pattern of our creator: we are created in the image of God. Yet God the Father is not married. All beings in heaven and earth are his children, not his spouse. Mary is not his wife. Mary is Joseph's wife. Jesus is not married. The Holy Spirit isn't even gendered. There is nothing about marriage we can learn from his image and likeness.

So next we inspect the natural world to guess at his design. Nature is full of homosexuality. Nature is full of creatures that switch genders. Nature is full of creatures that switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. And people can be born with XY chromosomes and female genitalia. What part of God's design was that, and could he please explain who this person can marry? No, you have to arbitrarily throw out these many contradictions in nature because they are not the norm. Guess what? Celibacy is not the norm, and yet the Church allows it and even expects it of some people. Why does the Church create an exception to this idea that procreation is fundamental to our design?

There are no good answers. Science will not vindicate you. The Church's theology won't lead you to an answer that is other than they declare the Magisterium as the final authority.
Anonymous
Post 03/16/2021 22:34     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


"Has to be ordered to procreation" is still unproven. There is plenty of homosexual sex in nature. There is asexual reproduction in nature. I know of one case in the Bible. I know of other cases of parthenogenesis of creatures that normally reproduce sexually. It's science. It happens.


But two men or two woman can’t by nature make a baby. Impossible. Human procreation/reproduction is one man and one woman.
Anonymous
Post 03/16/2021 21:20     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
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.


"Has to be ordered to procreation" is still unproven. There is plenty of homosexual sex in nature. There is asexual reproduction in nature. I know of one case in the Bible. I know of other cases of parthenogenesis of creatures that normally reproduce sexually. It's science. It happens.
Anonymous
Post 03/16/2021 21:12     Subject: Re:Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions
Anonymous wrote:
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

There's a world of difference between distrust of organized religion and disbelief in God.