PabloSerna said:

---

You are locked into the "act" which is intrinsically disordered. However, you exchanged that for "love" which is an oxymoron.

---

I know you won't give a straight answer, but I can't help myself:

- if I "love" my wife through the "act" of contraceptive sex, is that ok?

- if I "love" my wife, and I "love" another woman through an "act" of adultery, can that be ok?

- if I never loved my wife, but find a woman that I do "love", is the "act" of divorcing my first wife really wrong?

You make it sound like actions don't matter as long as you have good intentions. Something about a path to a certain place are paved with good intentions comes to mind. Waving away sinful actions as defined by the entirety of catholic history by declaring the sin being done with good intentions doesn't work.

PabloSerna said:

---

What don't you understand about love and the conjugal act? Human Vitae is a good start.

Negative, Negative, Depends (most likely positive).

---

So the act does matter? You are so vague that it's hard to really tell what you're advocating for.

If you're hoping that the church can make way for two men or two women to love each other in a non-sexual way, then say that.

If you're saying that you're hoping the church can find a way for two men or two women to have sexual activity with each other, I don't see how you're being logically consistent in the slightest.

PabloSerna said:

---

Actually what I saying is just the opposite. That love and the act of loving are one and the same. This is why I am printing out the love I have observed is not pure evil.

As a follower of Aquinas, he tells us that our senses can be trusted (but verified) lest we devolve into relativism.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Again, why won't you just answer the question? You can say definitively that contraception and adultery are wrong (even if you're iffy on the divorce part) but you can't say definitively that homosexual activity is wrong?

PabloSerna said:

---

I don't think so, because the opposite of love is hate. We know what that looks like.

As I said, and I have said I don't k know how, but it will boil down to love. For me, it is this because I have seen the love between people of both (heterosexual and homosexual) exhibit the exact same qualities.

I know of at least two couples that have been in love for 40+ years. What is that if not love? I don't know if they are still doing it (to be crude) but I know how they feel about each other and it is love.

We all know the 3 types of love in the Bible and this looks a whole lot like a combination of all of them. So I am just like others who can see that the physical and sexual abuse of Sodom and Gomorrah are not applicable. No one is saying let's make rape ok. Just the same I am not arguing for "marriage lite" - but that is where I stop. I don't know. However, I do trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the RCC.

---

This is a useless tautology. They're in love, so it's love, and God is Love. It's total nonsense.

PabloSerna said:

---

What I have often heard and am hearing here now is that the equation is being worked backwards from the sex act to the conclusion that it cannot be love (which is God I remind you) so it must be evil. Correct me if I am wrong with this line of reasoning?

---

Have you not worked backwards that contraceptive sex or adultery or polyamory cannot be love? All I want is for you to be logically consistent. Once you achieve that, we can weigh if it's right or wrong.

PabloSerna said:

---

Love as you must know is self giving and the willingness of good for another.

Using birth control (many forms) is closed to the gift of life and ends up turning each other into objects (Humane Vitae).

Adultery is obvious.

The other example you described sounded like a case of a person coming to the understanding that they cannot remain married to someone they "never" loved.

---

Quote:

---

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Love as you must know is self giving and the willingness of good for another.

Using birth control (many forms) is closed to the gift of life and ends up turning each other into objects (Humane Vitae).

Adultery is obvious.

The other example you described sounded like a case of a person coming to the understanding that they cannot remain married to someone they "never" loved.

---

so I can't use contraception and will the good of my wife? Some might say this is greatly willing her good as she can freely enter into a loving sexual act without fear of an untimely pregnancy. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only church left that flat out ban contraception. How do you know this isn't love?

But the reason for my adultery is my love for this new person. Why can't that be love? Or even toss out adultery. How about polyamory? Why can three or more of us love each other? How do you know this isn't love?

Your logic is inconsistent. Now, please tell us: how can an act that has been roundly condemned since the inception of the church as a grave evil be in anyway give license simply because two people "love" each other?

RAB91 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Love as you must know is self giving and the willingness of good for another.

Using birth control (many forms) is closed to the gift of life and ends up turning each other into objects (Humane Vitae).

Adultery is obvious.

The other example you described sounded like a case of a person coming to the understanding that they cannot remain married to someone they "never" loved.

---

Quote:

---

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---

---

Thank you. Pablo, you're more than welcome to have your position. The problem is by saying that there is space here "with no change", you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is extremely illogical and your unwillingness to speak plainly shows as much.

PabloSerna said:

---

It's seems obvious to me, but I will give you that it is the mere idea that something is changing, a doctrine, that immediately stops any further investigation.

If I can, we (Christians) immediately cite the passages of Sodom and Gomorrah, when a more careful reading would see that these are not the same.

Next up is the dual nature of the conjugal act (unitive and procreative). Inseparable no doubt! Especially when it comes to the opposite sex. This (birth control) is not love, because it is not fully given (Humane Vitae). Pope Paul VI was right.

Clearly though, Pope Paul VI was writing about the conjugal act between a man and a woman. That understanding will not change. However, we are talking about the physical act between two persons of the same sex. Neither is withholding anything. Each is freely given.

This is where the church says that the act is disordered because it is closed to life. I say that it is closed to life in a different way than the heterosexual act.

I know this is way into the weeds and I as a heterosexual person should've the last one to go down this path, but the few LGBTQ couples I know are good people. Thankfully God will judge them and not any of us!

---

I see what you're doing. It just doesn't work. You want to pretend that homosexual sex is in another category. Like as if it's closed to new life in the same way that doing the dishes is closed to new life. It doesn't work because you're lying with your body as JPII puts it. It's not an appropriate application. It's not fruitful. It's not in accord with God's design. You don't use your wiener to do the dishes.

PabloSerna said:

---

It's seems obvious to me, but I will give you that it is the mere idea that something is changing, a doctrine, that immediately stops any further investigation.

If I can, we (Christians) immediately cite the passages of Sodom and Gomorrah, when a more careful reading would see that these are not the same.

Next up is the dual nature of the conjugal act (unitive and procreative). Inseparable no doubt! Especially when it comes to the opposite sex. This (birth control) is not love, because it is not fully given (Humane Vitae). Pope Paul VI was right.

Clearly though, Pope Paul VI was writing about the conjugal act between a man and a woman. That understanding will not change. However, we are talking about the physical act between two persons of the same sex. Neither is withholding anything. Each is freely given.

This is where the church says that the act is disordered because it is closed to life. I say that it is closed to life in a different way than the heterosexual act.

I know this is way into the weeds and I as a heterosexual person should've the last one to go down this path, but the few LGBTQ couples I know are good people. Thankfully God will judge them and not any of us!

---

Thank you for finally spelling it out. I genuinely do appreciate it. I still feel like the catechism and historic church teaching has specifically condemned the act regardless of context, so I do not see how one can possibly unring that bell without the church admitting that an infallible teaching was wrong. If we believe in that charism, that shouldn't even be possible. In addition, I find it logically inconsistent. To say that I can't fully give myself to my wife or she can't give herself to me simply because she takes a pill wouldn't fly with the vast majority of the population. It doesn't take into account that I firmly FEEL the we LLVE each other. You're just saying a particular act is wrong regardless of how I feel, which is the exact opposite of what you're doing for the homosexual couple.

I was listening to a recent Pints with Aquinas, and the same guest was on Jack and Bobbie. The woman who used to live in lesbian relationships was incredibly inspiring and reminded me that first and foremost, God is love. If God is just rules, we've missed something. BUT God in His loving wisdom did give us rules. We need to try to understand why this loving God would do that and follow. Unfortunately many of us (homosexuals and heterosexuals alike) look at these rules as prohibitive rather than prescriptive. He gives these rules for our BENEFIT not to punish. So if He knows people will have same sex attractions yet lays out the rules anyway, we need to hyper vigilant that we don't stray from our responsibility to preach that truth. Otherwise we are in peril of sending people to hell and possibly follow them for the role we play in their eternal reward. The Bible says teachers are held to a higher standard.

This is where Strickland has been an incredible voice. He's not the only one, but one of the few. The fact that he is being punished should be of grave concern for all practicing Catholics. Easily as concerning as a priest being punished for speaking out against contraception, divorce or abortion. This is not something to celebrate because it shows me we are willing to let souls send themselves to hell rather than tell them the truth.

Sad to see love reduced to identity relationship with romantic or erotic feelings. Equally sad to see the equation work up to reduce God as love to the same.

PabloSerna said:

---

It would seem that some of you are the older brother in the parable about the Prodigal Son. It's quite telling that his father had to remind him "your brother" when the older son basically disowned his own flesh and blood.

This is where we are at now. I don't think the older brother ever came around to seeing the truth.

---

You seem to forget that the prodigal son returned with humility and remorse for his sin. He didn't come back to the Father with Pride and insisting that the Father accept his lifestyle and allow him to continue in it while now living back under his Father's protection.

The "acceptance" that appears to be preached by the "pastoral" liberal clergy is that we must embrace the sin along with the people. The idea of "admonishing the sinner" is lost even though that would be the truly Pastoral thing to do.

"... sin no more" were the words of Jesus. Not, "sure, hang out with me while you try to figure out if you want to follow me or not"

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

It would seem that some of you are the older brother in the parable about the Prodigal Son. It's quite telling that his father had to remind him "your brother" when the older son basically disowned his own flesh and blood.

This is where we are at now. I don't think the older brother ever came around to seeing the truth.

---

You seem to forget that the prodigal son returned with humility and remorse for his sin. He didn't come back to the Father with Pride and insisting that the Father accept his lifestyle and allow him to continue in it while now living back under his Father's protection.

The "acceptance" that appears to be preached by the "pastoral" liberal clergy is that we must embrace the sin along with the people. The idea of "admonishing the sinner" is lost even though that would be the truly Pastoral thing to do.

"... sin no more" were the words of Jesus. Not, "sure, hang out with me while you try to figure out if you want to follow me or not"

---

Well said

Pray for this faithful priest… https://t.co/mhpWi0kXoR

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 29, 2023

PabloSerna said:

---

"30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!'

+++

Read carefully this parable, because it is interesting that it was the older brother who falsely accused his brother. The younger brother did come to his senses because of hunger. He did squander his half of his inheritance on reckless living, but we do not know that he did the things his older brother accuses him of doing (prostitution).

Instead of rejoicing that his younger brother returned home, the older brother is angry and refuses to go in the house to celebrate. The father comes out to plead with him and he becomes just as indignant as the younger brother was at the beginning. We don't know if the older brother ever comes to his senses and joins the feast.

Think about it.

---

It doesn't matter. The younger son came back in humility and remorse, not Pride.

Yes, there is a lesson to be learned from the older brother, and that is to be accepting of the returning younger brother who has returned in humility.

It would have been a much different story if the younger brother had come back feeling entitled to come back into the family. Remember, he was coming back to be a servant, and not be treated as family.

the prodigal said, "I have sinned against you and against God..."

It is after this acceptance and acknowledgment of his sin, and his willingness to return in humility to serve rather than be served that he was then accepted by the Father back into the family. We can speculate what the father would have done otherwise, but it is a parable and the lesson taught is that the prodigal son returned with remorse and humility.

I find it interesting that you say the older brother "falsely accused" the younger brother.

We don't know that. The story is not that detailed but we can infer from the context that it was not an unreasonable accusation.

That you find that to be the "lesson" of the parable while ignoring the humility and remorse of the prodigal son is interesting to me.

Yes, there are multiple lessons to be garnered from this parable.

1) The Father forgives even the most heinous of sins. -- For the younger son to ask for his inheritance while his father still lives is tantamount to saying "I wish you were dead".

2) To be forgiven, you must understand that there is something to be forgiven for, and to seek such forgiveness.

3) As brothers, we need to join the Father in the forgiveness and avoid jealousy.

The actions of the younger brother while he was gone is almost irrelevant other than to point out that while he may have had fun for a while, it turned out that being away from his Father was not as good as he had expected.

PabloSerna said:

---

What of the hunger? Did you read that part?

I believe this hunger is for the love of the Father. He yearned for this and as you point out, came to his senses. He did arrive at a point in his life where he could see himself in the eyes of God and his father. We too will see ourselves in this very light at our day of personal judgement. Will we be as humble? More importantly will we accept the love and mercy God will no doubt show a contrite heart? Or will we allow the lie that the accuser, not unlike the older brother, to prevail?

Like many, it is easy to focus on the plight of a young man and his return home after coming to his senses. As I got older I started to see myself less like the younger brother and more like the older brother, gate keeping at times and judgmental. Thankfully God sent me some people I love to show me the way back. Work in progress.

ETA: The older brother did falsely accuse his brother. He didn't even know he had returned, how could he have know what he spent his money on? This isn't my analysis, heard this from another preacher. It is probably more reflective of what the older brother would have spent his money on. Think about it.

---

I see nothing wrong with trying to learn from the older brother's mistakes. The fact still stands that the younger son turned from his sin. You are not advocating for this. You are advocating for a position that suggests a particular set of sins were never actually sins to begin with. It's is incredibly disingenuous to compare the two scenarios

"Hunger for the love of the father"!?!?

Does your Bible not include the phrase, "he yearned to eat of the cobs he was feeding the pigs", and "even my father's servants have enough to eat".

No, the "hunger" is obviously physical hunger.

PabloSerna said:

---

ETA: The older brother did falsely accuse his brother. He didn't even know he had returned, how could he have know what he spent his money on? This isn't my analysis, heard this from another preacher. It is probably more reflective of what the older brother would have spent his money on. Think about it.

---

yes, a very common trope, "the people who are most judgmental, are only so because they wish they could do those things and get away with it.

There is no evidence in the story to say the older brother "falsely accused" the prodigal son.

Nowhere is it said, "No you don't understand, he didn't do any of that, he just {anything else that may have explained his loss of half of his Father's wealth in a relatively short time}.

As I said before, the specifics of what the prodigal son did while away is not important to the parable.

He "squandered his wealth in wild living".

What do you think "wild living" means?

Here is the full story if you want to read it:

Luke 15:11-32 NIV said:

---

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.
25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31 "'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

---

Those who wish to continue reveling in their pride and sin while still calling themselves "sons" really want to be both lost and found at the same time.

nevermind also the common interpretation of the fathers that the sons represent Israel, or Israel and the gentiles (porque no los dos?)

at any rate the issue with the younger son is that he did, in fact, live in an unclean manner. sexual immorality and idolatry are the two core sins of the OT, so it is not strange to find them both implied here.