Also thank you for the correction.

bh93 said:

---

I talked it out with my wife just a bit ago.

My logic was that we know the church calls premarital sex a sin. It also doesn't do anything to promote premarital sex and strongly discourages it.

That line of thinking needs to be applied to homosexual sex.

---

The plausibly technically acceptable alternative, a chaste cohabitating "family" of two, seems to be what Francis is saying needs to exist legally. Would he extend the same recognition to chaste cohabitating men and women?

The idea of such an arrangement seems likely quite far from anything that the Vatican would deem necessary or appropriate.

Quote:

---

Ro 1:1832 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

---

bh93 said:

---

What is the matter with civil Unions?

They are not the sacrament of matrimony.

Homosexuals are sinning only during the homosexual act. Correct?

---

Unrepentant sin disqualifies one from receiving the Eucharist.

We all sin.

If we repent of our sins, we are welcome at the table and may receive all of the benefits of the feast.

If we do NOT repent, our seat at the table is removed, and thereby the grace that follows form the Eucharist.

Knowingly, openly, and proudly(?) committing the same sin repeatedly, whether it is theft, adultery, greed, lust, or murder, is by definition, unrepentant.

As it relates to "condoning" or supporting same-sex civil unions, the scripture is pretty authoritative:

" It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." - Luke 17-2

chimpanzee said:

---

bh93 said:

---

I talked it out with my wife just a bit ago.

My logic was that we know the church calls premarital sex a sin. It also doesn't do anything to promote premarital sex and strongly discourages it.

That line of thinking needs to be applied to homosexual sex.

---

The plausibly technically acceptable alternative, a chaste cohabitating "family" of two, seems to be what Francis is saying needs to exist legally. Would he extend the same recognition to chaste cohabitating men and women?

The idea of such an arrangement seems likely quite far from anything that the Vatican would deem necessary or appropriate.

---

Do you really think this is what he was proposing? I don't. Hard pass.

Quote:

---

As it relates to "condoning" or supporting same-sex civil unions, the scripture is pretty authoritative:

" It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." - Luke 17-2

---

Christians all the time justify supporting the state engaging in "sinful" actions without having this misapplied verse thrown at them. Heck, just look at how many hide behind "electing a president, not a pastor" to justify casting a ballot for either of the two major candidates.

This priest broke down the original quote from the Pope which was in Spanish. He makes it seem like the civil union stuff was translated rather liberally. Any Spanish I learned my Junior year of high school is long gone by now, so I would be curious to see if anyone else had any more insight.

Yeah I've seen that circulated. I've never seen somebody stretch something so hard in my life.

They may. I don't.

It's always great to see pacifistag as one who supports heresy.

747Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Here's a great thread from a celibate lesbian Christian:

---

No, it's not about marriage. However, he is giving assent to grave sin.

---

Why did Jesus never speak on this "grave sin"? Maybe it's because walking around with his harem of men would have made him look a tad hypocritical?

cavscout96 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

bh93 said:

---

I talked it out with my wife just a bit ago.

My logic was that we know the church calls premarital sex a sin. It also doesn't do anything to promote premarital sex and strongly discourages it.

That line of thinking needs to be applied to homosexual sex.

---

The plausibly technically acceptable alternative, a chaste cohabitating "family" of two, seems to be what Francis is saying needs to exist legally. Would he extend the same recognition to chaste cohabitating men and women?

The idea of such an arrangement seems likely quite far from anything that the Vatican would deem necessary or appropriate.

---

Do you really think this is what he was proposing? I don't. Hard pass.

---

I should have said "possible", I doubt that's what he was suggesting, just thinking of the ex post facto reconciliation back to something technically compliant that would itself be, inconsistent.

Rittenhouse said:

---

It's always great to see pacifistag as one who supports heresy.

---

LOL okay.

Oh wait, 97% of your posts are on the politics board. Yeah, I'll put a lot of stock in what you have to say. [/sarcasm] In all honesty, I'm not sure what heresy I'm supposed to have supported. I'm commenting on civil unions, or state-sanctioned marriages. That's having to do with the state. I don't believe the state should be free to discriminate. The state definition of marriage does not need to match the church definition of marriage.

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAs said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Here's a great thread from a celibate lesbian Christian:

---

No, it's not about marriage. However, he is giving assent to grave sin.

---

Why did Jesus never speak on this "grave sin"? Maybe it's because walking around with his harem of men would have made him look a tad hypocritical?

---

Sola Scriptura atheism... scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

I abhor Marxism. But I don't think the Pope is necessarily wrong here. My own reframe on the issue of gay civil unions is how we keep polygamy from occurring down the road, if it were to somehow make a comeback?

If the state cannot discriminate against same gender unions, then what about number or bisexual?

There are fringes of various cultures practicing some forms of polygamy already. Swingers, orgies, all the above, that are unspeakable. So I question my own foresight on the issue.

I'm absolutely in the persuasion that marriage is to be left to only a man and a woman.

Anyway. Just rambling drivel.

PacifistAg said:

---

Rittenhouse said:

---

It's always great to see pacifistag as one who supports heresy.

---

LOL okay.

Oh wait, 97% of your posts are on the politics board. Yeah, I'll put a lot of stock in what you have to say. [/sarcasm] In all honesty, I'm not sure what heresy I'm supposed to have supported. I'm commenting on civil unions, or state-sanctioned marriages. That's having to do with the state. I don't believe the state should be free to discriminate. The state definition of marriage does not need to match the church definition of marriage.

---

I think you've conflated the point though.

The Pope, as the head of the Roman church, is appearing to support a sinful act through legal assent.

1. The head of the church should never support sin
2. You could make an argument that it is also not his place to steer, or attempt to steer, policy outside the church.

I have no problem with bishops opining on government policy. That's an ancient tradition. The opinion needs to be rooted in, and an expression of, the faith

Zobel said:

---

I have no problem with bishops opining on government policy. That's an ancient tradition. The opinion needs to be rooted in, and an expression of, the faith

---

I'm not sure I disagree, I'm just saying the argument could be made, especially in this case.

Sort of a before removing the splinter in your brother's eye, sort of thing.

Completely concur with your last sentence.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340921.htm

Comes to mind.

Quote:

---

2. You could make an argument that it is also not his place to steer, or attempt to steer, policy outside the church.

---

Does this apply only to the Pope? Or all followers of Christ?

... new Evangelicals!

Thought that was appropriate. As someone said earlier, Pope is not sitting on Saint Pete's chair here so take a chill pill.

747Ag said:

---

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAs said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Here's a great thread from a celibate lesbian Christian:

---

No, it's not about marriage. However, he is giving assent to grave sin.

---

Why did Jesus never speak on this "grave sin"? Maybe it's because walking around with his harem of men would have made him look a tad hypocritical?

---

Sola Scriptura atheism... scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

---

Oh come on now, you've used that one before.

Pet Sounds said:

---

Here we go again. The fake news will only help spread the confusion. It's pretty disheartening to see the Pope not be a clear teacher or correct some of the very liberal bishops. The Catholic Church looks to be following in the same steps of mainline Protestantism.

---

He is being a clear teacher. He's clearly teaching that it's okay to be gay.

God created us. And God would have to be a cruel entity to create homosexuals and expect them to reject their attraction to the same sex. I refuse to believe or respect a God that would do this to people.

Attraction or proclivity or desire is a terrible indicator of what a person should or should not do. The Lord taught us - all of us - that to follow Him we are to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily.

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAs said:

---

747Ag said:

---

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAs said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Here's a great thread from a celibate lesbian Christian:

---

No, it's not about marriage. However, he is giving assent to grave sin.

---

Why did Jesus never speak on this "grave sin"? Maybe it's because walking around with his harem of men would have made him look a tad hypocritical?

---

Sola Scriptura atheism... scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

---

Oh come on now, you've used that one before.

---

Fine then...

Christus Vincit!
Christus Regnat!
Christus Imperat!
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Salus Animarum Suprema Lex.
Deus Vult.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Pet Sounds said:

---

Here we go again. The fake news will only help spread the confusion. It's pretty disheartening to see the Pope not be a clear teacher or correct some of the very liberal bishops. The Catholic Church looks to be following in the same steps of mainline Protestantism.

---

He is being a clear teacher. He's clearly teaching that it's okay to be gay.

God created us. And God would have to be a cruel entity to create homosexuals and expect them to reject their attraction to the same sex. I refuse to believe or respect a God that would do this to people.

---

So it's your view that God is actively causing us to sin?

What were the consequences of Adam's sin on human nature, and more generally, on reality itself?

PabloSerna said:

---

... new Evangelicals!

Thought that was appropriate. As someone said earlier, Pope is not sitting on Saint Pete's chair here so take a chill pill.

---

Also, I get the whole ex cathedra thing, but does it really matter? He still speaks for a lot of folks. Do think an "off hand" or "off-the-record" comment does not carry weight is pretty nave.

As an aside, when you're the guy in charge, there is no such thing as "off-the-record."

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

2. You could make an argument that it is also not his place to steer, or attempt to steer, policy outside the church.

---

Does this apply only to the Pope? Or all followers of Christ?

---

the topic is specifically about the Pope.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Pet Sounds said:

---

Here we go again. The fake news will only help spread the confusion. It's pretty disheartening to see the Pope not be a clear teacher or correct some of the very liberal bishops. The Catholic Church looks to be following in the same steps of mainline Protestantism.

---

He is being a clear teacher. He's clearly teaching that it's okay to be gay.

God created us. And God would have to be a cruel entity to create homosexuals and expect them to reject their attraction to the same sex. I refuse to believe or respect a God that would do this to people.

---

And he is wrong.

Was has God allowed this man to be Pope?

Stupid question but it really scares me.

bh93 said:

---

Was has God allowed this man to be Pope?

Stupid question but it really scares me.

---

I'm no fan, but he's far from the worst to hold the post. Maybe it will all make sense on the other side, but certainly not before.

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Pet Sounds said:

---

Here we go again. The fake news will only help spread the confusion. It's pretty disheartening to see the Pope not be a clear teacher or correct some of the very liberal bishops. The Catholic Church looks to be following in the same steps of mainline Protestantism.

---

He is being a clear teacher. He's clearly teaching that it's okay to be gay.

God created us. And God would have to be a cruel entity to create homosexuals and expect them to reject their attraction to the same sex. I refuse to believe or respect a God that would do this to people.

---

So it's your view that God is actively causing us to sin?

---

My view is love is not a sin. If you love someone of the same sex, that isn't a sin. And having sex with them isn't a sin.

Lust is a sin. Not all same sex couples are committing lust. Some heterosexuals are lustful. They are sinning too.

cavscout96 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Pet Sounds said:

---

Here we go again. The fake news will only help spread the confusion. It's pretty disheartening to see the Pope not be a clear teacher or correct some of the very liberal bishops. The Catholic Church looks to be following in the same steps of mainline Protestantism.

---

He is being a clear teacher. He's clearly teaching that it's okay to be gay.

God created us. And God would have to be a cruel entity to create homosexuals and expect them to reject their attraction to the same sex. I refuse to believe or respect a God that would do this to people.

---

And he is wrong.

---

It isn't your job to decide that. Worry about your own salvation.

So is adultery a sin if you really love your side piece?