PabloSerna said:

---

Nailed what? That "its all just sin to me" part... that's is not how we understand sin in the RCC.

"All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal" (1 JN 5:17)

[CCC, 1861] Mortal sin… results in… the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell…

[CCC, 1862] One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.

+++

So, I have been making the argument that being gay, being trans IS NOT a choice. I wish LGBTQ lurkers would chime in on this point. They don't wake up in the morning and decide to be trans just to piss off people. It is something they have known almost their whole life. Why this reality scares some people is not my concern. It is a given. Let's go from there.

What I have come to understand through my friendships with LGBTQ folks and my own adult children - is that there is indeed a real biological basis for what we have deemed "disordered" based on a heterosexual understanding of the ordered purpose of our genitalia toward the participation in the creation of new life. This is the two sides of the same coin - unitive and procreative.

It has been established that being gay is not a sin. Engaging in sex outside of marriage is sinful - why? Because it is an act which seeks to separate the unitive from the procreative. In other words, its a "one night stand" - I want sex but not a baby. This leads to the objectification of a person's body which is a temple of God. Do you not see how this line of thinking is all from a heterosexual point of view? Gay men cannot get pregnant last I checked.

What I want to understand better, and I admit that I don't fully understand, is how a teaching directed toward heterosexual persons (unitive/procreative) can be equally applied to homosexual persons?

---

This is your error. Persons are persons. That teaching is not directed at heterosexual persons. It's directed at all persons.

Do we need separate teachings on wrath for those born with hot tempers?

What about those born with the desire to have multiple wives? Why aren't they accommodated.

Should an introvert be allowed to masturbate in order to bond with themselves?

Homosexuality is not an identity.

No. His entire comment was 100% on point.

You seem to have missed the whole part about repentance.

Either that,or you refuse to acknowledge that homosexual sex is sinful in any context.

This is plain throughout scripture and church teaching for millennia.

20th century politics does not change truth. Having a close friend or relative come out as gay also does not change the truth.

Quote:

---

It has been established that being gay is not a sin. Engaging in sex outside of marriage is sinful - why? Because it is an act which seeks to separate the unitive from the procreative. In other words, its a "one night stand" - I want sex but not a baby. This leads to the objectification of a person's body which is a temple of God. Do you not see how this line of thinking is all from a heterosexual point of view? Gay men cannot get pregnant last I checked.

---

By this logic out of wedlock pregnancies are A-OK.

Seriously one of the funniest TA threads of the year.

PabloSerna said:

---

Bear with me...

We know that Jesus died for all, yes? Even those that did not hear the words of salvation. Think Aboriginal people, Native American, Indigenous people before 1492. Their circumstances were different. Even now, we have good people who have not really "heard" the Good News of the Kingdom of God - wouldn't you agree?

We don't assume they went straight to hell. I know there are some fundamentalist that believe this - at least in the RCC - we don't, We call this invincible ignorance (LINK).

So, to your's and Jrico's point that I am "asking the church to acquiesce to their circumstance" - I don't have to, we already do this.

---

This is a bad argument. No, not at all - the Church does not acquiesce. There is no different standard for any of these people. The Church doesn't say, here's the gospel for Indians, here's the gospel for homosexuals, here's the gospel for alcoholics.

There is one Gospel, and only one. There is one Savior, and only one. As St Gregory says, "there is but One Way, and that a narrow one...even though it be split into many parts, and narrow because of its difficulties."

The beautiful truth is that this One Gospel, at it is for all mankind, and each human. It meets you right where you are in your circumstances. Divine providence is such that your circumstances are precisely for your salvation, and it all works for good. But you would say circumstances excuse sin, and this simply is not so.

What you're highlighting here is that before hearing the gospel, people in their ignorance and their circumstances are met exactly where they were, as enemies. Because that is what the sins of ignorance create: curse, enmity, rupture, a break in relationship, death. But "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died" for us; "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," and St Paul says a third time "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." And he asks, "are we to remain in sin?...Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" This is the acquiescence to circumstance.


St Paul in another place shows the response - "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

PabloSerna said:

---

I see that the Orthodox have no similar teaching to the RCC's Invincible Ignorance - so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

---

Key word. You can't be invincibly ignorant if you're properly catechized on the teachings around homosexuality.

And even if you could be...what you're asking for, blessing of homosexual relationships, would be the blessing of a state of invincible ignorance?

In the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) 2,000 year old philosophical and practical understanding, it is simply impossible to condone homosexual conduct, just as heterosexual infidelity. They are different by degree and severity, but not of kind.

This kind is an affront to the gift of the body, and ultimately to its Creator.

To argue otherwise - no matter how subtly - is to lose claim to the Apostolic faith. The circle cannot be squared. This is why dishonest men such as Father James Martin should just become an Episcopalian already.

Ambiguity on essential matters of faith and morals is a demonic tool (yes, literally). Meaning - regardless of intent, priests and bishops have an OBLIGATION to speak in a bold, kind, informed manner.

Charity in honesty and clarity. Christ told the Apostles to do so, as He assigned their ministry. Their successors in the 20th Century, by and large, have failed.

Father Martin et al. lead souls astray. The correct path is Father Rose, whom I mentioned earlier:
- Repent
- Weep
- Sin no more
- Serve and set an example. Speak the truth!

Stop with the bait and switch. No one is saying homosexuals are not called to Christ or that He will reject them.

PabloSerna said:

---

It would seem that any effort by men and women, either consecrated religious or otherwise, to better understand in your opinion - is demonic?

I don't agree. Again, this whole thread is about the Vatican seeking topics for further discussion in 2023. There are going to be a whole lot of topics from labor rights, immigration, racism, and more. Fr. Martin has dedicated his life to being a Priest to all people.

Here is a tweet from him earlier today,

Gospel: An overlooked line in the Gospels: "I will not reject anyone who comes to me," says Jesus today (Jn 6). All of us are human, flawed and sinful in some way. All of us are in need of conversion. Yet Jesus still calls us to walk beside him, in the community of believers.

---

I would not want to be in Fr. Martin's shoes when moves on from this life. He'll have a lot to answer for in his leading people astray.

And Fr. Martin doesn't even follow the quote he listed. He would argue that gays living that lifestyle are fine the way they are.

The bait and switch is consistently conflating objection to sin as objection to people. You've done it over and over again.

PabloSerna said:

---

Because the two are inseparable.

---

The logical corollary to this is that the Church cannot object to sin.

PabloSerna said:

---

I will say this about people like Fr. Martin who have spent time getting to know LGBTQ folks enough to see that their love for each other is real. Here's a quote,

"It is hard not to conclude that when people use "Hate the sin, love the sinner" exclusively when speaking about L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics, they are singling them out as if they are the only people whose lives are not in conformity with church teaching. Even worse, the "sin" that people focus on is the way that they love one another. William A. Barry, S.J., the spiritual writer and psychologist, once told me that this is especially damaging, because the way we love influences almost every aspect of our emotional, mental and spiritual lives. Saying "Your love is a sin" is an attack on part of a person's deepest self. Our selves are a mixture of mind, body and heart. Saying "Your love is a sin" strikes at each part of the human person."

---

And here I was thinking there were types of love that didn't involve sex. But apparently not.

I'm feeling real awkward about all those Christmas cards I signed "Love, Tony"