Pope affirms Fiducia Supplicans, objects to formal blessings

2,021 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 12 hrs ago by File5
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:03p, 4/24/26
AG
Says the Vatican still objects to rogue Germans

"Leo told reporters on the plane, "The Holy See has already spoken to the German bishops. The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of homosexual couples or couples in irregular situations, beyond what was specifically allowed by Pope Francis, saying: all people receive blessings"

I'll try to find the video

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/pope-leo-xiv-affirms-informal-blessing-for-homosexual-couples-and-downplays-sexual-sin/?utm_source=FB&fbclid=IwdGRleARYm95leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEecfq7NQyzXHFghIdTU9X0Y20roMPcn2G1YjMDvN7LJoogIKmhQutfGQ5JAMY_aem_q__sBLqAmlCbs09F5q9oiA
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 4/24/26
AG


About the 30 second mark
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 4:24p, 4/24/26
AG
To no one's surprise. The church has only begun to move away from "disordered" to persons having same sex attraction, to informal blessings. Formalizing this into a rite would be much too soon.

In my opinion, the German Catholic Church tends to skip past all the rest of the Catholic world and want to formalize a rite for LGBT Catholics. I will say that they too recognize that this is NOT marriage. That may seem trivial to some, but it is not since Holy Matrimony is a sacrament.

Interesting that Pope Leo is reaffirming the teaching which may be something? We shall see.
Reply Quote
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:47p, 5/8/26
AG
Bishop Strickland: Synod report on homosexuality a 'direct assault' on Catholic teaching

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-synod-report-on-homosexuality-a-direct-assault-on-catholic-teaching/?utm_source=lsncathfb&fbclid=IwdGRleARrHKhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe9eyir9jFmG4_2RxXAkDRD1usFuO6LJo4hCXn0TfNQ8l11SNEEM7KTtYtbqU_aem_Is40TQP7i-G5fnQzGubQFw
Reply Quote
3
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 2:56p, 5/8/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
To no one's surprise. The church has only begun to move away from "disordered" to persons having same sex attraction, to informal blessings. Formalizing this into a rite would be much too soon.

In my opinion, the German Catholic Church tends to skip past all the rest of the Catholic world and want to formalize a rite for LGBT Catholics. I will say that they too recognize that this is NOT marriage. That may seem trivial to some, but it is not since Holy Matrimony is a sacrament.

Interesting that Pope Leo is reaffirming the teaching which may be something? We shall see.


Interesting that you characterize Germany's actions as "too soon", rather than "wrong", "erroneous", "schismatic", etc

It's not that they did anything wrong, they just jumped the gun

You assume that the Church will eventually "come around" to where Germany is today, and even beyond.

Isn't it also possible that the Church does the opposite, reaffirms section 2357 and keeps it as is?
Reply Quote
7
4 edits
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 4:09p, 5/8/26
AG
It won't ever be marriage because marriage is clearly defined in scripture as between a man and a woman.

In my opinion, there will likely be some path for persons who are same sex attracted and in love with someone that they want to share the rest of their life with and be fully within the life of the church. I don't know what that path looks like, for now it is a blessing.

John 9 is in my opinion the basis for this path. We read how Jesus explains to the apostles that the man born blind neither sinned nor did his parents. His condition was for the glory of God.

I'm not the only person tracking this, scripture has been twisted before as when some interpret sexual violence as the same as a loving same sex relationship.

We live in a time where more people are coming to understand their sexual orientation as a gift instead of a sin. The problem we have is that we have understood human sexuality only through a heterosexual lens.

ETA: I have read the testimony from the USA. Very compelling and an insight that sheds light on where the previous approaches, like conversion therapy fall short. No surprise that Bishop Strickland would object.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 11:32a, 5/9/26
AG
PabloSerna said:


In my opinion, there will likely be some path for persons who are same sex attracted and in love with someone that they want to share the rest of their life with and be fully within the life of the church. I don't know what that path looks like, for now it is a blessing.


What path do you foresee? Genuinely interested in what you are getting at.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 1:06p, 5/9/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
It won't ever be marriage because marriage is clearly defined in scripture as between a man and a woman.

In my opinion, there will likely be some path for persons who are same sex attracted and in love with someone that they want to share the rest of their life with and be fully within the life of the church. I don't know what that path looks like, for now it is a blessing.

John 9 is in my opinion the basis for this path. We read how Jesus explains to the apostles that the man born blind neither sinned nor did his parents. His condition was for the glory of God.

I'm not the only person tracking this, scripture has been twisted before as when some interpret sexual violence as the same as a loving same sex relationship.

We live in a time where more people are coming to understand their sexual orientation as a gift instead of a sin. The problem we have is that we have understood human sexuality only through a heterosexual lens.

ETA: I have read the testimony from the USA. Very compelling and an insight that sheds light on where the previous approaches, like conversion therapy fall short. No surprise that Bishop Strickland would object.


What is a 'heterosexual lens' and where can I find the church fathers discussing it? Or aquinas? Or anyone prior to the last 50 years? Did God give us a bad translation in Genesis that Jesus subsequently quotes in the gospels?
Reply Quote
9
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 5:53p, 5/9/26
AG
The apostles grappled with a similar situation, as I see it, whether to circumcise new gentile converts or not. The church has a history of refining without losing the essence of revealed truth.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bird Poo • 5:55p, 5/9/26
AG
For sure it won't be sacramental. I will elaborate later as my kid has practice and we need to leave. (Dad stop typing!)
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 9:42p, 5/9/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
The apostles grappled with a similar situation, as I see it, whether to circumcise new gentile converts or not. The church has a history of refining without losing the essence of revealed truth.


'As you see it'? What weight does that carry in Christendom?
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 10:25p, 5/9/26
Pablo, I love how much you care for the downtrodden. I think you're coming from a good place. I type the rest of this in an attempt to caution you to not let your empathetic inclinations lead you into falsehood.

Quote:
In my opinion, there will likely be some path for persons who are same sex attracted and in love with someone that they want to share the rest of their life with and be fully within the life of the church. I don't know what that path looks like, for now it is a blessing.

Sodomy is a sin. It's a sin for you in your marriage and me in mine just as much as it is for homosexuals. What sort of path forward are you hoping for when the physical act they are engage in is a sin in all situations?

Quote:
I'm not the only person tracking this, scripture has been twisted before as when some interpret sexual violence as the same as a loving same sex relationship.

You are using twisted interpretations of scriptures to say scripture has been twisted. Trent Horn is excellent on this point, specifically 1 Corinthians 6. If this is describing a violent or coercive sexual act, then why is the one who is being coerced or treated violently equally condemned to never inherit the Kingdom of Heaven? Are they to blame for their victim status?

Also, there were multiple Roman Emperors that were "married" to other men. The idea of a loving same sex relationship was not foreign to biblical times. It's revisionist history to say otherwise.

Quote:
I don't know what that path looks like, for now it is a blessing.

Leo was clear: homosexual "couples" are not blessed. Persons are allowed blessing, even if in sinful relationships. But the relationship itself is NOT allowed a blessing.

Quote:
We read how Jesus explains to the apostles that the man born blind neither sinned nor did his parents


I know I've said this to you multiple times, so I doubt this time will be different, but I do hope it resonates with you. If not you, then then maybe it will for other readers. People are NOT born gay. Genetics studies show there is minimal genetic contribution to sexuality. It is a nurture issue, not nature. The nurture issues that lead to homosexual inclinations have been noted frequently.

I know you are incredibly resistant to this fact, but it stands nonetheless. I'd fraternally challenge you to look into this. The studies are available. The interviews with people who used to live homosexual lifestyles are all over the internet. If you are truly open minded to viewing this issue through different lenses, please look into their testimony. Hear about the brokenness that led to their sexual inclinations and listen to them as they speak about the healing they received when they understood what really happened to them. Who is more equipped to discuss the issue than a person who has lived on both sides of it?
Reply Quote
5
TSJ
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 10:34p, 5/9/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
The apostles grappled with a similar situation, as I see it, whether to circumcise new gentile converts or not. The church has a history of refining without losing the essence of revealed truth.


They correctly applied the pre-existing laws regarding gentiles living in Israel to how gentiles would need to live, see Leviticus.

What pre-existing teaching does FS reference about same sex couples?
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:04a, 5/10/26
AG
"People are NOT born gay."

You say a lot, however, everything hinges on this condition. My reflection comes from the understanding based on scripture that they are indeed born this way, hence John 9, holds a key to our understanding.

Because if what we are learning, that same sex attraction is not some gene, but based in love- something immeasurable then we need to turn to God (who is love) for a more pastoral understanding.

As for your concern for my spiritual well being, I appreciate that, however, I am following my Dominican brother in Christ (Aquinas) on this and have no fear of where the Holy Spirit, the author of all truth, is leading me. Again, look around, talk to people, read, study, and pray.

ETA: I have a growing collection of books about human sexuality going back some time. It includes the conditions you have described (conversion therapy). I go back to the "love" question. It is what got me started in the first place.
Reply Quote
3 edits
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TSJ • 10:49a, 5/10/26
AG
As I read it, this is an example of the early church grappling with the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. After the confrontation between Peter and Paul regarding gentile converts, some "refinements" were made to place the emphasis on the sacrifice of Christ and not so much on the letter of the law.

I believe the church is in a similar position in this time regarding sexual orientation. As someone posted earlier, there are some who insist this is a choice that can be made- the "pray the gay away" folks.

I don't believe persons who are same sex attracted can change that orientation. Conversion therapy, such as the Catholic apostolate, Courage, attempts to walk down a similar path with devastating consequences. That for now is the pastoral approach. That gay Catholics must suppress their sexuality and live a chaste life to fully participate in the life of the church.

What if there was a way for someone born same sex attracted, to live openly in the life of the church and share their life with another in a way that reflects the glory of God? They will still need to live a chaste life, receive the sacraments, and live out the gospel in everything they do.

The one part I know is the most problematic, is their physical expression of that love. As a heterosexual person I do not understand what that means as I have never felt that way. All of our understanding is based on the two inseparable dimensions of that expression- procreative and unitive. For heterosexual persons, this act can only happen in marriage and without any contraception to attempt to separate those two dimensions of physical love between a man and a woman. I call this the heterosexual lens.

What I have come to understand is that the love between same sex persons in long term committed relationships reflects the unitive dimension as well and in some cases better than other heterosexual marriages I know. Therefore, I have been asking if this is real love? Because if it is, and we know that love comes from God (not some gene)- then we need to make room in the tent for this situation.

What that looks like- I don't know. I have already said, it is not marriage, because we know that scripture is clear on that- one man and one woman. Plus, the time for the establishment of sacraments is over when Christ ascended to heaven. For now it is blessings of individual persons (yes I knew that) not couples - in irregular relationships.

The German Catholic Church has come to the same conclusions and more. They are ready to put a Rite in place and move on. The rest of the Catholic Church is not there and to Captain Pablo's point may retreat or double down on the "pray the gay away" approach. The reason I don't see that happening is because they have adjusted language ever so slightly that indicates that they too are understanding this as not a lifestyle choice, but a real condition.

Anyways- long way of saying that we (RCC) are just getting started. The two year Synod on Synodality (2021-2024) has just wrapped up. That was a listening session. Just recently a testimony from a Catholic was released for the public. The link is posted above, it is worth reading. Even the questions asked are worth reading. The church is asking and seeking. What will come of this? I don't know- I'm actively praying on it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 11:07a, 5/10/26
AG
I know where your question is leading- settled doctrine. This reflection is not about settled doctrine between two persons of the opposite sex. Humane Vitae (c.1968) is a great encyclical on the RCC's inspired teaching that reaches back into scripture and forward into the question of family planning.

It's a fine point, but maybe you can help- what does scripture or the RCC tell us about people who are same sex attracted and wish to live fully in the life of the church in a free and loving relationship?
Reply Quote
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:30p, 5/10/26
AG
There are 0 mentions of any positive same-sex relationships in the Bible, any time it is mentioned it is condemned strongly. I've read a few of the books on sexuality and their attempts at rationalizing it, they always fall short.

I have no idea what causes a person to be same-sex attracted. I wish it was simply something we could ignore and brush under the rug but it's not.
Reply Quote
6
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 3:46p, 5/10/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
I know where your question is leading- settled doctrine. This reflection is not about settled doctrine between two persons of the opposite sex. Humane Vitae (c.1968) is a great encyclical on the RCC's inspired teaching that reaches back into scripture and forward into the question of family planning.

It's a fine point, but maybe you can help- what does scripture or the RCC tell us about people who are same sex attracted and wish to live fully in the life of the church in a free and loving relationship?


They wish to be in a relationship that is by its nature abusive and criminal. There can't be a loving version of that because it violates the law of non contradiction.
Reply Quote
4
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 4:43p, 5/10/26
AG
"Abusive and criminal" in which ways? Please explain as related to scripture and reality.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 4:45p, 5/10/26
AG
"any time it is mentioned" - please cite which scriptures you mean by "it" - thx
Reply Quote
1 edit
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 7:48p, 5/10/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
"any time it is mentioned" - please cite which scriptures you mean by "it" - thx


You know the verses I'm talking about in Leviticus, Romans, etc. I know certain people have found ways around those verses. I think it's bunk in an attempt to be friendly to the modern age.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 8:58p, 5/10/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
"Abusive and criminal" in which ways? Please explain as related to scripture and reality.


They're brute facts. A sin is a crime in the truest sense because they offend our creator. It's an abuse because it's a wrong application of your sex organs.

Is sodomy a sin?
Reply Quote
3
light_bulb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 9:40p, 5/10/26
AG
Bob Lee said:
PabloSerna said:
"Abusive and criminal" in which ways? Please explain as related to scripture and reality.


They're brute facts. A sin is a crime in the truest sense because they offend our creator. It's an abuse because it's a wrong application of your sex organs.

Is sodomy a sin?


I will answer for Pablo: No. And if you think it is, then go read the catechism about corporeal works of mercy. Have a nice day.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 10:41p, 5/10/26
Quote:
My reflection comes from the understanding based on scripture that they are indeed born this way



In other words, you are 100% convinced that they are born that way and there is no evidence one can offer to prove you wrong. You're so open to one side and one side only that you've become completely closed-minded. That is evidenced in how you absolutely slandered (libeled) a Catholic apostolate in your next post. Claiming that Courage is focused on conversion therapy (they explicitly say they don't), and "pray the gay away" (which they explicitly don't) and that is only has disastrous results (despite the numerous interviews you can find online from people that benefited from their help, which I have recommended) is uncharitable, untrue and suggests you have no idea what they actually stand for.

And if you are truly trying to follow in Aquinas' steps, maybe you shouldn't stand in opposition to his teachings on the matter:

Quote:
As stated above (Articles 6 and 9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulatio

n.

And

Quote:
Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.



How can one love someone by committing grave sin with them? It's akin to saying using contraception is loving your spouse as much, if not more, because it allows you to engage in sex more often (actual arguments made back in the commission on contraception). If two men or two women can "love" one another while leading each other into grave sin, can my wife and I not "love" each other by committing grave sin with one another too? Is that really "love"? Or is it, as Aquinas argues thoroughly, just plain old lust.

Unless the Catholic Church is actually capable of teaching incorrect moral doctrine for 2000 years (which is a massive issue for the claims of Catholic infallibility), I believe you will be in the camp of so many pro-contracepts back in the 1960s. Certain that the Church was finally going to cave, and citing commissions on the subject recommending a change only to have Paul VI shut the door firmly.

And its' worth reminding: most of the "German Catholic Church" in the 1500s followed Luther into Schism. Them being all in favor of a moral doctrine changes is not something that should give you much hope…
Reply Quote
10
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 9:06a, 5/11/26
PabloSerna said:
I know where your question is leading- settled doctrine. This reflection is not about settled doctrine between two persons of the opposite sex. Humane Vitae (c.1968) is a great encyclical on the RCC's inspired teaching that reaches back into scripture and forward into the question of family planning.

It's a fine point, but maybe you can help- what does scripture or the RCC tell us about people who are same sex attracted and wish to live fully in the life of the church in a free and loving relationship?


They can't do it. Like any other sinful desire, the desire itself isn't sinful, the acting on it is. They have to carry their cross like any other Catholic does with any innate desire that is sinful.

I don't know why we care about the "born with it" nature or not. We are born with original sin, we have all sorts of sinful desires that come from living in a fallen world.

Why are we trying to rob people with same sex attraction from the grace that comes with white knuckling your passions and overcoming them?

I get that it's easy if we just tell them "you're okay like you are", but hospice is also easy, and leads to the same place
Reply Quote
5
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 10:07a, 5/11/26
Vox Clamantis said:


I don't know why we care about the "born with it" nature or not.

Because the argument, from a liberal Christian perspective, is that God made them gay. It's not simple fallen human nature. He intentionally created them that way. If He created them to want gay relationships, then either gay sex isn't a sin or God made them with the intention that they would be sinners. The only other option is God wants them to have no helpmate in life, despite Him saying it is not good for man to be alone at the beginning of creation. All of these run afoul of Church teaching.

Pushing back on "born this way" is necessary because it turns God into something He is not
Reply Quote
6
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:11a, 5/11/26
The Banned said:
Vox Clamantis said:


I don't know why we care about the "born with it" nature or not.

Because the argument, from a liberal Christian perspective, is that God made them gay. It's not simple fallen human nature. He intentionally created them that way. If He created them to want gay relationships, then either gay sex isn't a sin or God made them with the intention that they would be sinners. The only other option is God wants them to have no helpmate in life, despite Him saying it is not good for man to be alone at the beginning of creation. All of these run afoul of Church teaching.

Pushing back on "born this way" is necessary because it turns God into something He is not

It appears I am giving them too much credit, it's such a weak argument. Might as well say that God created Judas with no choice but to betray Christ, but we know that rather than absolving Judas of sin for his actions, he's referred to as the Son of Perdition, and said that it was better had he not been born.
Reply Quote
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:20a, 5/11/26
AG
The Banned said:
Vox Clamantis said:


I don't know why we care about the "born with it" nature or not.

Because the argument, from a liberal Christian perspective, is that God made them gay. It's not simple fallen human nature. He intentionally created them that way. If He created them to want gay relationships, then either gay sex isn't a sin or God made them with the intention that they would be sinners. The only other option is God wants them to have no helpmate in life, despite Him saying it is not good for man to be alone at the beginning of creation. All of these run afoul of Church teaching.

Pushing back on "born this way" is necessary because it turns God into something He is not


Which under that view would render God's design incoherent. Because their reproductive systems are made objectively for a particular purpose that's indistinguishable from people who weren't born that way.

We cannot serve our vocation by doing violence to God's design.
Reply Quote
7
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:22p, 5/11/26
AG
Not everything written by Aquinas is doctrine. Dig a little more and you will know what I am talking about (human life, women, Mary). If you thought I did not already know that take- you are totally missing my point I have been trying to make.

Again, it does hinge (for me as well) on whether human sexuality and sexual orientation is a choice. You say it is, end of discussion, proceed with condemnation. I don't think it is that simple. Of course our upbringing has some bearing, however, no amount of Modern Family, *****t's Creek, or any other entertainment will make someone change their sexual orientation, in my opinion.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 1:56p, 5/11/26
PabloSerna said:
Not everything written by Aquinas is doctrine. Dig a little more and you will know what I am talking about (human life, women, Mary). If you thought I did not already know that take- you are totally missing my point I have been trying to make.

Again, it does hinge (for me as well) on whether human sexuality and sexual orientation is a choice. You say it is, end of discussion, proceed with condemnation. I don't think it is that simple. Of course our upbringing has some bearing, however, no amount of Modern Family, *****t's Creek, or any other entertainment will make someone change their sexual orientation, in my opinion.

I know not everything he writes is doctrine, but in a setting where his name is being invoked as a good reason for accepting homosexual actions, I believe his own words should stand in for him.

You are still working with a limited or no understanding of why people experience same sex attraction, and you show little desire to do so. Anyone talking about conversion therapy, or thinking that a couple tv shows are going to make people gay or straight is a very low tier explanation of the other side.

It is about healing. Something happened to these people (and there is a fairly decent understanding of what that is, even if the research is consistently opposed). We want to see people healed of this wound. You want addicts healed. Those that have anger issues. Those that have porn issues. Those that fear parenthood. So many examples of conditions you'd immediately identify as a deprivation of the good and you'd rightly want them to find healing. But when it comes to LGBT issues, the idea of "healing" from it is repugnant.
Reply Quote
6
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to light_bulb • 3:07p, 5/11/26
AG
light_bulb said:
Bob Lee said:
PabloSerna said:
"Abusive and criminal" in which ways? Please explain as related to scripture and reality.


They're brute facts. A sin is a crime in the truest sense because they offend our creator. It's an abuse because it's a wrong application of your sex organs.

Is sodomy a sin?


I will answer for Pablo: No. And if you think it is, then go read the catechism about corporeal works of mercy. Have a nice day.


Appreciate the light humor. Important to remember that this is a discussion not a trial.

+++

To answer the question, there are certain requirements for sin to occur. First, some definitions and criteria for a basis of discussion:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1857), a mortal sin requires three simultaneous conditions: grave matter (serious violation of divine law), full knowledge (knowing it is sinful), and deliberate consent (freely choosing to do it). Without all three, a sin is venial [1862]. Sin is defined as an offense against reason, truth, and conscience, constituting a failure in love for God and neighbor [1849].

Now- I have been making the case that our sexuality and sexual orientation are gifts from God for the glory of God. What I don't want this understanding to reduce to is that it is the only thing that defines us. I believe it is a key piece, but not the only aspect. This aligns with the Theology of the Body, a series of lectures by the late Pope John Paul II that has helped the church faithful better understand the human person in light of God's creation.

Without going too far into that document, I will say that it has helped me understand human sexuality (maleness and femaleness), the body as a temple of God, and the meaning of love in marriage. What it does not address is love between persons of the same sex. But then, I think it is love- not some distortion.

If love then a reflection of God who is love (1 Jn 4:8).

Last, because I could go on, I want to reiterate that it is my own reflection not some ax to grind or worse my wish for a change in church teaching- I'm doing what Aquinas has done- one foot in the world and the other in scripture.

ETA: I was going somewhere with the sin aspect, because I wanted to respond to the "abuse and criminal" summation that I would say is not so black and white, given that I believe that our sexual orientation predisposition plays a part. I am aware that cuts both ways, heterosexual and homosexual- but for heterosexual persons there is a path- it is marriage. That does not mean homosexual persons can be promiscuous, but I would hope that they can enter into a loving, long term relationship that can lead them and their lover to God. What that looks like, I don't know.
Reply Quote
1 edit
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:34p, 5/11/26
AG
"Something happened to these people"

Because there is no way God permitted them to be born this way- right?

ETA: Amazingly you sound like one of the disciples (John 9, RSV)

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Reply Quote
2 edits
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 4:04p, 5/11/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
light_bulb said:
Bob Lee said:
PabloSerna said:
"Abusive and criminal" in which ways? Please explain as related to scripture and reality.


They're brute facts. A sin is a crime in the truest sense because they offend our creator. It's an abuse because it's a wrong application of your sex organs.

Is sodomy a sin?


I will answer for Pablo: No. And if you think it is, then go read the catechism about corporeal works of mercy. Have a nice day.


Appreciate the light humor. Important to remember that this is a discussion not a trial.

+++

To answer the question, there are certain requirements for sin to occur. First, some definitions and criteria for a basis of discussion:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1857), a mortal sin requires three simultaneous conditions: grave matter (serious violation of divine law), full knowledge (knowing it is sinful), and deliberate consent (freely choosing to do it). Without all three, a sin is venial [1862]. Sin is defined as an offense against reason, truth, and conscience, constituting a failure in love for God and neighbor [1849].

Now- I have been making the case that our sexuality and sexual orientation are gifts from God for the glory of God. What I don't want this understanding to reduce to is that it is the only thing that defines us. I believe it is a key piece, but not the only aspect. This aligns with the Theology of the Body, a series of lectures by the late Pope John Paul II that has helped the church faithful better understand the human person in light of God's creation.

Without going too far into that document, I will say that it has helped me understand human sexuality (maleness and femaleness), the body as a temple of God, and the meaning of love in marriage. What it does not address is love between persons of the same sex. But then, I think it is love- not some distortion.

If love then a reflection of God who is love (1 Jn 4:8).

Last, because I could go on, I want to reiterate that it is my own reflection not some ax to grind or worse my wish for a change in church teaching- I'm doing what Aquinas has done- one foot in the world and the other in scripture.

ETA: I was going somewhere with the sin aspect, because I wanted to respond to the "abuse and criminal" summation that I would say is not so black and white, given that I believe that our sexual orientation predisposition plays a part. I am aware that cuts both ways, heterosexual and homosexual- but for heterosexual persons there is a path- it is marriage. That does not mean homosexual persons can be promiscuous, but I would hope that they can enter into a loving, long term relationship that can lead them and their lover to God. What that looks like, I don't know.


You need to read Love and Responsibility, and re-read Theology of the body. Augustine pegged healthy sexual desire to its biological function, procreation, even going so far as to say things like that post menopausal women should abstain from sex. Wojtyla and later JPII took an integral view of the human person. What you're doing is taking what Wojtyla identifies as a romantic interpretation of human sexuality. You can think about this as opposite Augustine. It's a hedonistic interpretation, and it's never been put forth by anyone in the Church that I know of, especially Aquinas. Unless you want to point to guys like Fr. James Martin.

The procreative aspect of sex is not in doubt, which is what you seem to want to strip from the equation by saying gay people are different from straight people in the same way men are different from women. You say this without being able to point to any physiological differences that would suggest a difference in kind, and all evidence to the contrary which the Banned continuously points out to you and you ignore.

Saying there's no path for gay people isn't different from saying there's no path to chastity for sex addicts, or people addicted to masturbation or pornography.

Is sodomy a sin? Would Pope St. John Paul II say sodomy is a sin?
Reply Quote
3
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Lee • 4:19p, 5/11/26
AG
I have both and can tell you that they are geared toward marital love between a man and woman.

While there is a rich understanding that can be gleaned from each; it does little to address what I believe is a condition (same sex attraction) allowed by God since birth for the glory of God.

ETA: Sodomy is a sin in marriage because it denies the hand of God for the creation of new life.

ETA 2: I'm glad you cited Augustine, because he rightly understands one of the two dimensions of the conjugal act. Again, not talking about love between two persons of the opposite sex.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Bob Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 4:48p, 5/11/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
I have both and can tell you that they are geared toward marital love between a man and woman.

While there is a rich understanding that can be gleaned from each; it does little to address what I believe is a condition (same sex attraction) allowed by God since birth for the glory of God.

ETA: Sodomy is a sin in marriage because it denies the hand of God for the creation of new life.

ETA 2: I'm glad you cited Augustine, because he rightly understands one of the two dimensions of the conjugal act. Again, not talking about love between two persons of the opposite sex.


Which is the only acceptable context for sex. Any other expression is inhuman.

From the CDF and approved by Pope St. John Paul II

"Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life."

To read this or Love and Responsibility, or Theology of the Body and conclude that JPII's theology on human sexuality allows for sodomy outside of marriage is plain willful ignorance. There is no ambiguity here.
Reply Quote
1
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.