Agreed.RebelE Infantry said:Orthodox Texan said:You can read an infinite amount of scientific literature and none of that will give you an ethical framework required for many of the current LBGTQ plus whatever issues. Once again people don't understand this basic principle but they think "new data" will better equip them with making these decisions or supporting someone. It's pretty sad to see it happening at a larger scale today but this is what happens when people lack the correct worldview laid out by divine revelation and passed down through Holy Tradition.PabloSerna said:
God did make Man and Woman, no one is arguing otherwise. What is becoming more apparent as science (LINK) is discovering - is that there is more information to be factored into this reality. St. John Paul II's encyclical, Fiedes et Ratio assures us that science and faith are proper to a full understanding. Let us not shut down the science and the people experiencing this in their lives. Don't you think?
Anyways, Trad Catholics always have an open door to the Orthodox Church. You can get away from this evil in the church and let those who lack wisdom bring destruction to their churches and family.
"Roman Catholics, in the midst of a disintegrating church structure, are finding that Orthodoxy is everything they once thought Roman Catholicism to be." - Fr. Seraphim Rose
I have a great love for my Eastern brothers and sincerely desire our reconciliation. That said, I (by the grace of God) will never leave the Barque of Peter, nor should any Catholic.
May the Blessed Mother, the Theotokos, inspire the reunion of her children from the East and the West.
LGBTQ Catholics and Synodality
18,352 Views |
265 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bird Poo
PS, there will always be bad apples in the various denominations who treat those different from them with disdain/hate and certainly not the love Christ calls us to. And I agree we need to show love and listen to those brothers and sisters in the LBGTQ community. However I do not think the Church would or should twist itself to reinterpret scripture and doctrinal teaching . Sin is sin. It's should mean we love any less. Even between most Protestants and Catholics, we agree what God says on these points. Gif gave us reason and science…but science has also been used against Christian beliefs, so we have to be careful. Current would allow us to create abhorrent life forms…but it doesn't mean we should.PabloSerna said:
Science indeed has a place in our understanding, which I would say inform one of the many dimensions of a solid, ethical framework. To deny science its place is to bury one's head in the sand. We don't have to agree, but to say it does not - does not make it true.
The Church (RCC) has a history of "fine tuning" the teaching passed down. You can start with Paul and Peter discussing Gentiles and circumcision. Right down to Pope Paul VI encyclical, Humane Vitae. The Church is alive in the world, it has to be - not conformed to the world, but to be a light unto it. This is the purpose of the Synods.
Right now, people who love God are being told God does not love them. That they are not welcomed in the house of God and that they are the work of Satan. But don't take my word for it - read or better yet - talk to them yourself. We had a wonderful person on here trying to share their story and we drove them away. Nice going - how Christian of us.
Woah…pump the brakes there. Disagree with Pablo's stance but don't go through ridiculous ideas like the Pope being the devil and Catholics blindly following him. That's not the way the Church is structured. Just like Peter was chosen, he also new that the first would be the last etc. That's why we have Bishops etc. Let's it get into a Catholic vs Orthodox debate…bc for one, I'm not even sure what ethnic Orthodox Church you belong to so I wouldn't know which historical events to challenge you with. And I wouldn't condemn a Protestant as not being a Christian and I wouldn't do that to the Orthodox. We all have seek salvation through Christ, the Son of God. And let's not through out the idea of idol worship…we aren't mentioning kissing the handsOrthodox Texan said:Well for starters I don't accept him as a saint because there is no true justification for it. You have Trads who despise what is going on (rightfully so) and yet have to accept whatever the Pope puts out. Even as "saint" Catherine of Siena mentioned obeying the Pope even if He was the incarnate devil. This is the logical end for Catholics and the initial outcomes are in plain sight right now. It's so obvious but sadly many Catholics won't go very far into the great schism and fall prey to the idea of Peter and the keys. So unfortunately they are bound to this and will inevitably fall to idol worship but at least it's all in the open now and they can be honest about their loyalty which goes anywhere with the Pope (not Christ). Some will get out, as I've seen even at my local parish and they get to worship Christ as we all did at one time in the past. First amount equals is not the same as muh keys and papal authority.PabloSerna said:
Fruit = tree
ETA: Proselytize has no place here. Also, before popping off, about something you know nothing about, in this case an encyclical by a canonized saint no less, you should read it cover to cover. Here is his main point and something I believe makes complete sense: "Faith and Reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which is soars to the truth."
You seem to be saying that no amount of scientific literature or new data, as you put it, will give you an ethical framework of the current LBGTQ plus whatever issues (how respectful). Please get to know some LGBTQ folks that match your level of spirituality and education. They may not be of your Church - but they may enlighten you.
I for one, am glad, that my Church is listening, is in dialogue. If this scares the faithful, they should ask themselves, why? Are we not guided by the Holy Spirit (JN 14:26).
You are not guided by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, not the RCC. There is a cognitive dissonance with the trads but like I said above some will get out and some will continue to be led by whatever it is this current Pope is heading toward. I guess it's some sort of LBGTQ utopia or something. The same as some of the Lutherans and Methodists. All nonsense and not Christian. I've never heard one enlightening thing from a member of that community. All just individualism/classical liberalism mushed together to allow them the their own justification for pursuing whatever they want (or more accurately allowing passions to drive their identity). They worship themselves so ya I wouldn't take any advice from them when it comes to Christian theology or history because it's painfully obvious they they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Orthodox Texan said:Well for starters I don't accept him as a saint because there is no true justification for it. You have Trads who despise what is going on (rightfully so) and yet have to accept whatever the Pope puts out. Even as "saint" Catherine of Siena mentioned obeying the Pope even if He was the incarnate devil. This is the logical end for Catholics and the initial outcomes are in plain sight right now. It's so obvious but sadly many Catholics won't go very far into the great schism and fall prey to the idea of Peter and the keys. So unfortunately they are bound to this and will inevitably fall to idol worship but at least it's all in the open now and they can be honest about their loyalty which goes anywhere with the Pope (not Christ). Some will get out, as I've seen even at my local parish and they get to worship Christ as we all did at one time in the past. First amount equals is not the same as muh keys and papal authority.PabloSerna said:
Fruit = tree
ETA: Proselytize has no place here. Also, before popping off, about something you know nothing about, in this case an encyclical by a canonized saint no less, you should read it cover to cover. Here is his main point and something I believe makes complete sense: "Faith and Reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which is soars to the truth."
You seem to be saying that no amount of scientific literature or new data, as you put it, will give you an ethical framework of the current LBGTQ plus whatever issues (how respectful). Please get to know some LGBTQ folks that match your level of spirituality and education. They may not be of your Church - but they may enlighten you.
I for one, am glad, that my Church is listening, is in dialogue. If this scares the faithful, they should ask themselves, why? Are we not guided by the Holy Spirit (JN 14:26).
You are not guided by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, not the RCC. There is a cognitive dissonance with the trads but like I said above some will get out and some will continue to be led by whatever it is this current Pope is heading toward. I guess it's some sort of LBGTQ utopia or something. The same as some of the Lutherans and Methodists. All nonsense and not Christian. I've never heard one enlightening thing from a member of that community. All just individualism/classical liberalism mushed together to allow them the their own justification for pursuing whatever they want (or more accurately allowing passions to drive their identity). They worship themselves so ya I wouldn't take any advice from them when it comes to Christian theology or history because it's painfully obvious they they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
So much wrong with this.
First we are obedient to the Church started by Christ. Which is fully Catholic, not just a bunch of independent national churches that are as delusional as protestants about having unity.
We have faith in Christ and his promise to St Peter whom he entrusted the keys to the kingdom, that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Should we abandon the Lord's Church during her passion, like so many did to our Lord during his? No, we shall pray do penance and fast, then we shall rejoice when we see the Lord fulfill his promises.
Next we owe obidence to Our Pope and bishops and priests as they are our spiritual fathers. However if they break with their obedience to Christ we do not follow. St. Catherine, not any other saint has ever implied otherwise.
And as always the invitation for the Orthodox to live up to the agreement at Florence, which your Bishops signed, is always present if you choose to come home.
I've heard enough. I know where this is going.PabloSerna said:
The Church (RCC) has a history of "fine tuning" the teaching passed down.
And just like Orthodox Texan and Zobel have said, science does not inform ethics. Science answers the 'how' it can not give any information about the 'why.'
If anything science creates more moral obligations that it can't answer. Nobody would argue for there to be a moral obligation for the coast guard operating helicopters during hurricanes without the prexisting framework of helicopters, radar, and telecommunications. Without that technology you don't even bring up the idea of coast guard rescuing people. You just don't go out in a row boat, as part of your job, before a storm that will surely kill you as well. The ethics rise as science creates more abilities for mankind.
What is science supposed to inform us about LGBTQ issues anyway? Hard determinism and the answer to consciousness? (Good luck), Social studies of psychological outcomes that don't pass replication? (More likely). A gay gene? (Only available in frogs).
In this thread: Schrodinger's goats and sheep.
A dual state of being dependent upon your observational viewpoint.
A dual state of being dependent upon your observational viewpoint.
PabloSerna said:
Right now, people who love God are being told God does not love them. That they are not welcomed in the house of God and that they are the work of Satan. But don't take my word for it - read or better yet - talk to them yourself. We had a wonderful person on here trying to share their story and we drove them away. Nice going - how Christian of us.
By whom? Not Catholic Clergy and Catholic Leadership.
There's a difference between seeking the inclusion into the Body of Christ --and attempting the destruction of dogma from within.
You want to be part of the Church? Cool, we would love to have you, but we have a certain way we act and a set of beliefs. If you dont adhere to those or have moral issues with those, we understand, but we aren't going to change our way of doing things to placate your arrogance of thinking you know better than thousands of years of tradition.
That doesn't mean we hate you, it just means you need to be willing to capitulate to the will of God and his Church and leadership, not the other way around.
You and Zobel are arguing an "either or" when I am saying this is a "both and" position. We could not be further apart on this aspect. I highly recommend Fides et Ratio for a better, in depth understanding that science (reason) and faith are like the two wings upon which we build our understanding.one MEEN Ag said:I've heard enough. I know where this is going.PabloSerna said:
The Church (RCC) has a history of "fine tuning" the teaching passed down.
And just like Orthodox Texan and Zobel have said, science does not inform ethics. Science answers the 'how' it can not give any information about the 'why.'
If anything science creates more moral obligations that it can't answer. Nobody would argue for there to be a moral obligation for the coast guard operating helicopters during hurricanes without the prexisting framework of helicopters, radar, and telecommunications. Without that technology you don't even bring up the idea of coast guard rescuing people. You just don't go out in a row boat, as part of your job, before a storm that will surely kill you as well. The ethics rise as science creates more abilities for mankind.
What is science supposed to inform us about LGBTQ issues anyway? Hard determinism and the answer to consciousness? (Good luck), Social studies of psychological outcomes that don't pass replication? (More likely). A gay gene? (Only available in frogs).
I am glad you brought up the will of God, because that is precisely where I believe we are headed.
What a load of BS. God loves all sinners, and I have never heard a priest/deacon say otherwise. One particular type of sin (engaging in homosexual behavior in this case) does not disqualify a person from God's love. Now the Church will not endorse the gay lifestyle, and if someone takes that to mean they're not welcome, that's on them.PabloSerna said:
Right now, people who love God are being told God does not love them. That they are not welcomed in the house of God and that they are the work of Satan. But don't take my word for it - read or better yet - talk to them yourself. We had a wonderful person on here trying to share their story and we drove them away. Nice going - how Christian of us.
Science is not reason.
"You are not guided by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, not the RCC."
+++
I would never think this, much less write this about any Christian denomination. You have to seriously ask yourself is this really true? Then go ask your Priest or spiritual advisor. The answer will shock you.
+++
I would never think this, much less write this about any Christian denomination. You have to seriously ask yourself is this really true? Then go ask your Priest or spiritual advisor. The answer will shock you.
It is a load of BS but this IS happening. But as Levar Burton would say... Don't take my word for it, go read about it! If you want an authentic search for the truth - then go to the people who are saying this and writing about this.
Would you say science involves logic?
Science is a process. We use our faculty of reason, along with other skills and abilities such as observation to perform that process.
This is like equating watching TV with sight.
This is like equating watching TV with sight.
Again, I'm pretty sure you're confusing lack of an endorsement for their lifestyle with the idea that God doesn't love them. And why should the Church endorse a sinful lifestyle?PabloSerna said:
It is a load of BS but this IS happening. But as Levar Burton would say... Don't take my word for it, go read about it! If you want an authentic search for the truth - then go to the people who are saying this and writing about this.
That is what I mean by logic. That we observe and then reason - the scientific method. I think you know this, but are being coy. This "process" to use your words is not opposed to faith. Faith, as Paul writes, is the evidence of things unseen.
Will you accept it when it doesn't change as it never has? After all God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.PabloSerna said:
I am glad you brought up the will of God, because that is precisely where I believe we are headed.
The Church should NOT endorse a sinful lifestyle - lets get that straight.
What I am saying is that being gay is not a sin.
What I am saying is that being gay is not a sin.
As long as they don't act on it, I agree. Just like a straight person may be tempted to have sex outside of marriage, but just being tempted isn't a sin.PabloSerna said:
The Church should NOT endorse a sinful lifestyle - lets get that straight.
What I am saying is that being gay is not a sin.
PabloSerna said:
The Church should NOT endorse a sinful lifestyle - lets get that straight.
What I am saying is that being gay is not a sin.
No one claims that being born with same-sex attraction is sinful.
Do you believe that a committed sexual relationship between two monogamous gay men (or women) can be something other than sinful?
If your answer is no, then fine, bring on the self-referential Synod.
If your answer is yes, then you are hoping that something the church has held as sinful for millennia will suddenly not be sinful anymore.
never said science was opposed to faith.
I asked you earlier. What needs to be fine tuned? Be specific.
I asked you earlier. What needs to be fine tuned? Be specific.
That was one of your saints who said it but it holds to be true. You have to agree with what the Pope says so she's correct. If the Pope (not saying he is) was the incarnate devil then you must obey him because if you don't then you will be disobeying Christ. Orthodoxy is decentralized to a degree (nothing like Protestantism of course) and for obvious reasons. Humans step out of line and the pope was never the sole source of authority. You would think this would have been an issue from the beginning lol.BluHorseShu said:Woah…pump the brakes there. Disagree with Pablo's stance but don't go through ridiculous ideas like the Pope being the devil and Catholics blindly following him. That's not the way the Church is structured. Just like Peter was chosen, he also new that the first would be the last etc. That's why we have Bishops etc. Let's it get into a Catholic vs Orthodox debate…bc for one, I'm not even sure what ethnic Orthodox Church you belong to so I wouldn't know which historical events to challenge you with. And I wouldn't condemn a Protestant as not being a Christian and I wouldn't do that to the Orthodox. We all have seek salvation through Christ, the Son of God. And let's not through out the idea of idol worship…we aren't mentioning kissing the handsOrthodox Texan said:Well for starters I don't accept him as a saint because there is no true justification for it. You have Trads who despise what is going on (rightfully so) and yet have to accept whatever the Pope puts out. Even as "saint" Catherine of Siena mentioned obeying the Pope even if He was the incarnate devil. This is the logical end for Catholics and the initial outcomes are in plain sight right now. It's so obvious but sadly many Catholics won't go very far into the great schism and fall prey to the idea of Peter and the keys. So unfortunately they are bound to this and will inevitably fall to idol worship but at least it's all in the open now and they can be honest about their loyalty which goes anywhere with the Pope (not Christ). Some will get out, as I've seen even at my local parish and they get to worship Christ as we all did at one time in the past. First amount equals is not the same as muh keys and papal authority.PabloSerna said:
Fruit = tree
ETA: Proselytize has no place here. Also, before popping off, about something you know nothing about, in this case an encyclical by a canonized saint no less, you should read it cover to cover. Here is his main point and something I believe makes complete sense: "Faith and Reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which is soars to the truth."
You seem to be saying that no amount of scientific literature or new data, as you put it, will give you an ethical framework of the current LBGTQ plus whatever issues (how respectful). Please get to know some LGBTQ folks that match your level of spirituality and education. They may not be of your Church - but they may enlighten you.
I for one, am glad, that my Church is listening, is in dialogue. If this scares the faithful, they should ask themselves, why? Are we not guided by the Holy Spirit (JN 14:26).
You are not guided by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, not the RCC. There is a cognitive dissonance with the trads but like I said above some will get out and some will continue to be led by whatever it is this current Pope is heading toward. I guess it's some sort of LBGTQ utopia or something. The same as some of the Lutherans and Methodists. All nonsense and not Christian. I've never heard one enlightening thing from a member of that community. All just individualism/classical liberalism mushed together to allow them the their own justification for pursuing whatever they want (or more accurately allowing passions to drive their identity). They worship themselves so ya I wouldn't take any advice from them when it comes to Christian theology or history because it's painfully obvious they they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Orthodoxy has its issues as well when looking at some of its current leaders but there's not much they can do compared to something like Vatican I and II. Kissing of the hands has nothing to do with idols and only respect, love, and blessings. Ancient customs can be different than our modern greeting. Ethnic differences are out outside Holy Tradition which binds all of us together, as it has since the beginning. Even Catholics can follow that historical line to a certain point.
cavscout96 said:you are familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, yes?PabloSerna said:
Pleased cite the scripture that discusses love between people of the same sex - freely given, freely received, and lived out in a chaste, loving relationship.
as to the "manner" in which sin is committed, take out "same sex" and replace it with "unmarried," or even "adulterous."
is it OK if I commit any other sin if I do it "lovingly?"
I'm going to answer you seriously, but I am going to assume you have actually read GN 19 and Lot's account. I have linked it and I challenge anyone here to argue this is anything but gang rape.
+++
Hear me out - being gay in and of itself is not a sin.
What is sinful is having sex outside of marriage. Because it is self directed and void of love. It seeks pleasure over love. Marriage is defined as (CCC 1662) "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."
I like to think of this as marriage par excellence. The highest order. Clearly, before the fall, God made woman for man (GN 2:22). For each other. God also made us immortal. Then there was the fall. As a consequence of sin, death entered the picture. Not just death, but a fallen nature in need of salvation.
Fast forward to now. There is evidence that being gay or being trans has a biological basis. I happen to know a few people who are gay, lesbian, and trans. What they tell me, is that they have always felt this from an early age. I believe them. I have a number of gay couples as clients and we talk, just like this - because I want to know! At one time, I didn't know and I assumed they made a choice - to be gay - to be trans. Just like I make a choice to wear jeans or put on boots. This is ignorance.
In fact, they have so clearly stated to me that there is NO choice - they feel free when they can finally embrace themselves as gay, lesbian, or trans. This is not some evil decision to destroy the world, but a decision to be a part of it like they feel God has called them to do. Yes - many are very much in tune with God and Jesus.
What they have taught me is that God loves them - gay, lesbian, and trans. They know this and desire greatly to be a part of his Church. To receive the sacraments. To live a chaste life either single or in a committed, loving, and free relationship with another person of the same sex. To raise children. To worship in communion with all of us and to build up the Kingdom of God.
I believe there has to be a way. It may be that the mission by the RCC apostolate Courage is this way? It may also be a recognition of a union between two people of the same sex living a chaste life under the same roof? It may be something else all together.
I look forward to learning and following the will of God.
PabloSerna said:
I am glad you brought up the will of God, because that is precisely where I believe we are headed.
What changes are you advocating for?
I think I stated my beliefs above. However, I wanted to ask you a question, and anyone else:
If "God is love" as Jesus has taught us (1 JN 4:16) and two people of the same sex profess their love for each other through a free, committed, and loving relationship - what then would you call that?
I see love there, I have seen it with my own eyes. It is every bit as the love between an old happy couple of the opposite sex. So then I wonder why people would say this is sinful? A house divided among itself cannot stand as Jesus has taught us.
There is something good there. I am not saying it is the same as Holy Matrimony, but I can see this love they profess. I would encourage everyone to meet LGBTQ people and see for yourself.
If "God is love" as Jesus has taught us (1 JN 4:16) and two people of the same sex profess their love for each other through a free, committed, and loving relationship - what then would you call that?
I see love there, I have seen it with my own eyes. It is every bit as the love between an old happy couple of the opposite sex. So then I wonder why people would say this is sinful? A house divided among itself cannot stand as Jesus has taught us.
There is something good there. I am not saying it is the same as Holy Matrimony, but I can see this love they profess. I would encourage everyone to meet LGBTQ people and see for yourself.
Personally, I think there has to be a way for LGBTQ people to live in a chaste, loving, and committed relationship. Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. I take that to mean that marriage is a path we walk together on earth with our loved one. I am so blessed to have been on a loving journey with my wife of 34 years.
In the end, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us through this and I do take comfort in that.
In the end, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us through this and I do take comfort in that.
PabloSerna said:
I think I stated my beliefs above. However, I wanted to ask you a question, and anyone else:
If "God is love" as Jesus has taught us (1 JN 4:16) and two people of the same sex profess their love for each other through a free, committed, and loving relationship - what then would you call that?
I see love there, I have seen it with my own eyes. It is every bit as the love between an old happy couple of the opposite sex. So then I wonder why people would say this is sinful? A house divided among itself cannot stand as Jesus has taught us.
There is something good there. I am not saying it is the same as Holy Matrimony, but I can see this love they profess. I would encourage everyone to meet LGBTQ people and see for yourself.
I'd call it what I call any of the loving relationships I have with other men at church. Friendship and fellowship. That's what it is. There is something good there, but it is not on the same level of good as Matrimony, you're correct.
But when you say the word "committed", what do you mean? What level of commitment is it? Is it a commitment to chastity? A commitment to "monogamy"? What if one of these two men decides after commitment that they're called to something else?
What about when that "good" is balanced against being in a constant state where one is in the "near occasion of sin" living with someone they're sexually attracted to? You're asking the Church to ignore "...and lead us not into temptation"
Do the members of the church always do a great job ministering to the homosexual community? No. But those issues exist on both sides of the coin, and these days moreso on the side that would sooner fly rainbow flags in mockery of God's covenant instead of the flag of the Vatican.
And you did not answer the question I asked. It's a simple question: Can these blessed relationships have a sexual component?
I would agree that sex (the act), has a dual aspect - unitive and procreative. This is where guidance is sought because clearly one aspect is missing. Therefore it (sex) would be strictly unitive.
To your other points:
1. Committed - for life. No different than what the sacrament of marriage calls for.
2. Married couples are called to live a chaste life. Chaste does not mean celibate.
3. Temptation, Near occasion of sin - This is possible because having sex is a choice. Check out the apostolate "Courage" because this is the model they advocate.
To your other points:
1. Committed - for life. No different than what the sacrament of marriage calls for.
2. Married couples are called to live a chaste life. Chaste does not mean celibate.
3. Temptation, Near occasion of sin - This is possible because having sex is a choice. Check out the apostolate "Courage" because this is the model they advocate.
PabloSerna said:
I would agree that sex (the act), has a dual aspect - unitive and procreative. This is where guidance is sought because clearly one aspect is missing. Therefore it (sex) would be strictly unitive.
To your other points:
1. Committed - for life. No different than what the sacrament of marriage calls for.
2. Married couples are called to live a chaste life. Chaste does not mean celibate.
3. Temptation, Near occasion of sin - This is possible because having sex is a choice. Check out the apostolate "Courage" because this is the model they advocate.
If strictly unitive sex is a "good", why is contraception forbidden for married couples?
It's because tearing apart the two aspects of sex is taught to be wrong.
But I'm glad you admit you're looking for the Church to change her teachings. You're not looking for clarification. Your admission that these relationships would have a sexual component makes it clear that you're not interested in what the Church actually has to say on the matter, as they've taught pretty definitively on the matter.
What is the purpose for which the sacrament of marriage exists? In your church, not in mine. Seems to me that you have to change the purpose of the sacrament to accommodate homosexuality. Is that really just "fine tuning?" If it was, you wouldn't employ accommodation.
Well that is not what I said - but ok.
Is there marriage in heaven?
PabloSerna said:
Well that is not what I said - but ok.
How do you reconcile a strictly unitive "sex"?
Spoiler: you can't. It would fly in the face of Catholic sexual teaching. There's a reason you danced around it for a few posts, because it's an indefensible if one looks at the Magisterium.
We actually agree. Just re-read what I wrote. That this is where I want to hear from these Synodal discussions. That said, what do you tell a couple (man and woman) where the wife has had a hysterectomy? I ask, because this is what happened to my mother just after I was born due to cervical cancer.
As for fine tuning, read up on how the RCC has expanded its pastoral approach to divorce. It does happen, and it does not change the original intent. That is where I think this is an important time. Because, as someone already pointed out by citing Sodom and Gamorah - this is not about gang rape.
As for fine tuning, read up on how the RCC has expanded its pastoral approach to divorce. It does happen, and it does not change the original intent. That is where I think this is an important time. Because, as someone already pointed out by citing Sodom and Gamorah - this is not about gang rape.
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
1d ago
8.0k
22:46
45m ago
1.6k
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
by David Nuño
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
77:19
1d ago
1.7k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs
rwhitlock3
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44