No. The teaching is that all forms of sexual, relational intimacy are for the confines of marriage. And that marriage is between a man and woman. Every other situation calls for chastity.PabloSerna said:
You are correct that the millennia of church teaching on this is clear and unchanged. The point I have been trying to make is that this teaching is directed toward heterosexual persons.
PabloSerna said:
Exactly - because they are not directed toward new life (children)!
I have read the exact passages in the CCC. What I am understanding is that our genitalia is ONLY for that purpose. Which is true of heterosexual persons, but not true for homosexual persons. I don't believe gay persons engage in sex to have or avoid having children. They do so because of deep affection for the person they love. That is where the sin, as we know it now, happens.
Quote:
The point I have been trying to make is that this teaching is directed toward heterosexual persons.
Who declared wedding tackle is only for child creation? Can nothing have a dual purpose in the catholic church? Should married couples not also have deep affections?PabloSerna said:
Exactly - because they are not directed toward new life (children)!
I have read the exact passages in the CCC. What I am understanding is that our genitalia is ONLY for that purpose. Which is true of heterosexual persons, but not true for homosexual persons. I don't believe gay persons engage in sex to have or avoid having children. They do so because of deep affection for the person they love. That is where the sin, as we know it now, happens.
There are plenty of churches that make stuff up so LBGTQ couples can go there to feel acceptance and have some sort of confirmation. They can check out churches like Restore Austin. That pastor almost exclusively talks about LBGTQ or racism. They would love it.americathegreat1492 said:
Ok I think I got it now. Equivalent not in a structural sense, but functional sense. It seems like you want a Church recognized relationship that is salvific and applies to homosexuals. Heterosexuals already have one (called marriage).
We could add more (e.g. such a thing would make people feel more welcome), but is this a good summary of your intent and position?
Pablo has his reasons. IIRC he has at least one LBGTQAI+ kid.Orthodox Texan said:There are plenty of churches that make stuff up so LBGTQ couples can go there to feel acceptance and have some sort of confirmation. They can check out churches like Restore Austin. That pastor almost exclusively talks about LBGTQ or racism. They would love it.americathegreat1492 said:
Ok I think I got it now. Equivalent not in a structural sense, but functional sense. It seems like you want a Church recognized relationship that is salvific and applies to homosexuals. Heterosexuals already have one (called marriage).
We could add more (e.g. such a thing would make people feel more welcome), but is this a good summary of your intent and position?
Watching supposed Christian heterosexual men defend homosexuality is odd. They have no justification whatsoever so it's interesting why some tirelessly defend it. Unknowingly they are using classical liberalism instead of Christian doctrine and so they are confirming worship of the self.
And here is the crux of the matter. Its very easy to look at the doctrine and see the rules laid out by God, but then having a kid identify as gay would have you grasping for anything to help bridge that gap with your child and your relationship with God.powerbelly said:
Pablo has his reasons. IIRC he has at least one LBGTQAI+ kid.
Where is this faith 'walk' taking me to exactly? You're doing exactly what the pharasee's did. Take the most legalistic interpretation possible and then try to weasel around it to still condone what you wanted to do in the first place.PabloSerna said:
I can appreciate your concern, but I cannot deny what I already know to be a truth- that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord is present in the most holy sacrament.
It would seem that you would shut down any further growth as part of your faith walk. I on the other hand am confident that Jesus has already given us this answer. So, when something comes up that doesn't quite make sense- like using Sodom and Gahmora as a proof text for the condemnation of homosexual relations- I search.
I believe God laid out the rules for all fruits.PabloSerna said:
The purpose of marriage is not sex. His wife was still alive, in a coma, so he was not free to marry again. This is an apple to a loving, committed, free relationship between two people of the same sex - an orange.
Your quote: "This is an apple to a loving, committed, free relationship between two people of the same sex - an orange."PabloSerna said:
Yeah, you are not hearing me correctly - this is NOT about gay marriage. There is no such thing.
Most if these aren't "machinations of the RCC" but rather of men. The Church is clear on the subject and is only looking to show charity to the LBGTQ community who don't feel the love. They don't feel it from many denominations, but certainly some more than others. The RCC follows scripture (which is material sufficiency) and by Christs declaration, provides the formal sufficiency to understand scripture when it isn't clear. That is why many Church dogmas existed well before they were actually declared 'infallible' . The Church didn't step in to state something everyone was already practicing unless there was a major disagreement or some heretical movement. And I don't see the Church having to clarify anything regarding homosexual marriage and physical relationships. Most Protestants and the RCC/Orthodox agree. To me it's like saying I really really wish that all good loving people would be saved even if they didn't believe in God. Jesus brought the sword (Gods word ) and preached that it wouldn't be easy and peaceful to follow him. We, as Christians, struggle as we live out our faith (thanks a lot Eve)nortex97 said:
I've stayed out of this thread as I don't have much to add/say/opine about these machinations of the RCC, but it is pretty entertaining to learn about. Thx all.
Ya that's tough. Sexual immorality has to be one of the hardest passions to refuse but I guess everyone has their cross to bear. Those who attempt to change what is right and wrong might have a harsher judgement than the ones who fall, get back up, and repent. Divisions with family and community members are inevitable and that is extremely difficult.one MEEN Ag said:And here is the crux of the matter. Its very easy to look at the doctrine and see the rules laid out by God, but then having a kid identify as gay would have you grasping for anything to help bridge that gap with your child and your relationship with God.powerbelly said:
Pablo has his reasons. IIRC he has at least one LBGTQAI+ kid.
I can't remember the study's name, but it showed that the number one reason anyone left a church or church altogether was because the church was harping against their sexual sin. Whether it was sexual orientation, divorce, abortion, premarital sex, or cohabitation. God was great until he suddenly got between humans and their sexual desires and then it was time to leave that church.
You've redirected the questioning when it got too close for comfort, but you've at least tacitly admitted to it being a sin.PabloSerna said:
Are all sins the same?
nailed itone MEEN Ag said:You've redirected the questioning when it got too close for comfort, but you've at least tacitly admitted to it being a sin.PabloSerna said:
Are all sins the same?
About your sin question. Every type of sin separates us from God. Now you've got this distinction called a grave sin versus a non grave sin which is out of my depth as its all just sin to me.
And specifically, we are to repent of our sin and turn from our ways. Thats exactly what Jesus and all the prophets called to do. Not just acknowledge its existence but to go and sin no more.
And there's the issue with homosexuality and its derivatives. Its sin you don't want to repent of, and even identify through. I don't declare my sin from the rooftops as a proud thing. Its not so core of my identity that I would rather keep it and reject God than repent of my sin. For those keeping score at home, I have the same conviction about divorce and remarriage.
