PabloSerna said:

---

Not kidding. Even double checked. So the ball is in your court to point to this "infallible" dogma. Not arguing it is established tradition and doctrine. Just pointing out that you are using a word that is loaded. That is all.

The fact that you bring up polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and incest as further iterations of love is a straight tell that you have no interest in an authentic discussion. So let's just agree to disagree. No need to devolve into stupidity.

---

Complete evasion. You say that infallible has a specific and special designation, yet you casually wave away challenges to historical teaching holds as infallible as something that need not be discussed, despite the "distress" it causes people with these attractions. If the Church has to infallibly define every single sin in the book, She has a ton of work to do

PabloSerna said:

---

Not sure if you are Catholic, however, the Church distinguishes between the types of sin as venial and mortal. Mortal as you may know involves free will, full knowledge, and grave matter.

Yes, words matter. So just laying out the terms so we can discuss this with some understanding.

---

Not words. Word games. We did this on another thread. The act itself is a mortal sin. Whether that participant was fully aware, etc matters but the ACT is mortally sinful. I used the article you cited as proof.

PabloSerna said:

---

Of course. I don't pretend to understand all of church teaching, but I also know it is important to look around and ask questions.

---

Of course you will? So, theoretically, if the Pope came out tomorrow and dogmatically defined homosexual acts (all of them) and transgender ideology as evil full stop, you will abandon this exercise you've been going through? You will tell those you love that you believe it's a sin if they ask you?

I'm not trying to trap you. I have to teach against a certain number of things I "wish" were permissible due to my fallen human nature. it's hard to give up my position for the official position of the church. Maybe it's easier for you

PabloSerna said:

---

Not kidding. Even double checked. So the ball is in your court to point to this "infallible" dogma. Not arguing it is established tradition and doctrine. Just pointing out that you are using a word that is loaded. That is all.

The fact that you bring up polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and incest as further iterations of love is a straight tell that you have no interest in an authentic discussion. So let's just agree to disagree. No need to devolve into stupidity.

---

All statements made Ex Cathedra by the Pope, concerning items of faith and morals are infallible, but those are not the only infallible teachings of the church.

Explain to me why the church can evolve to bless homosexual marriages, but it cannot do so to bless other arrangements. Seriously, show your work. I am trying to have an authentic discussion here, why can our doctrine evolve into accepting gay marriage but not plural marriage?

Reasons you have cited:

1. Born that way
2. Archaic and incorrect view of scripture
3. Youth thinking the church is behind
4. Gut feeling

Are you maintaining it's impossible for someone to fall in love with more than one person?

PabloSerna said:

---

Of course. I don't pretend to understand all of church teaching, but I also know it is important to look around and ask questions.

---

I have good news for you. The Church has already done so, over the last 2,000 years

PabloSerna said:

---

Can you elaborate? Thx

---

The telos of the sexual act is procreation. Every other use of the sexual faculty is not the "sex act." There will never be an action between two members of the same sex that is the sexual act.

And an ex cathedra statement is infallible, but not all infallible teachings are ex cathedra. By your definition, the existence of the Church, or Christ's resurrection is not an infallible teaching.