"stunning change in the way that the Catholic church speaks about gay people"

[TofuMofu]

Of course being homosexual is not a sin. This the Church very clearly teaches.

However, engaging in a homosexual act is sinful. Just like engaging in any sexual act outside marriage is sinful. Sinfulness can only relate to voluntary acts.

There are millions of homosexuals who understand this subtle but critically important difference. (And of course millions who don't.)

Here is an American faith-based organisation that addresses these issues very candidly. There are many organisations like this, working quietly and with great love.

Oh well. I'm not religious so doesn't bother me what they think.

Pretty sure the Catholics are against homosexuals getting married as well

 

[ShaunSA]

What's really stunning is that people actually think a bunch of guys in frocks know anything about anything :erm:

 

[Arthur]

What's really stunning is that people actually think a bunch of guys in frocks know anything about anything :erm:

Even more stunning is the notion that people are born with frocks.

 

[ShaunSA]

Even more stunning is the notion that people are born with frocks.

Are you suggesting the catholic church adopt nudity as its official dress?

Mind you it may be a good idea. At least we would know when an altar boy is giving a priest some wood.

 

[Nick333]

Even more stunning is the notion that people are born with frocks.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Of course being homosexual is not a sin. This the Church very clearly teaches.

However, engaging in a homosexual act is sinful. Just like engaging in any sexual act outside marriage is sinful. Sinfulness can only relate to voluntary acts.

There are millions of homosexuals who understand this subtle but critically important difference. (And of course millions who don't.)

Here is an American faith-based organisation that addresses these issues very candidly. There are many organisations like this, working quietly and with great love.

And yet we don't see the Church campaigning to stop adulterers and fornicators from getting married.

 

[Arthur]

So only thieves know about the morality of stealing?

 

[ShaunSA]

And yet we don't see the Church campaigning to stop adulterers and fornicators from getting married.

Stop them from getting married? Heck they will conduct the wedding themselves.

 

[Arthur]

Stop them from getting married? Heck they will conduct the wedding themselves.

Fornication isn't an impediment to marriage. Being already married to someone else is. As is being of the same sex. Or acting under compulsion or under the age of consent. The Catholic Church cannot marry people who are already married to someone else, for it cannot unjoin what God has already joined. As King Henry found out. Which is why he started his own church.

 

[grok]

Of course being homosexual is not a sin. This the Church very clearly teaches.

However, engaging in a homosexual act is sinful. Just like engaging in any sexual act outside marriage is sinful. Sinfulness can only relate to voluntary acts.

No no no no no, you're preaching a fallacy ..

Matthew 5:28 says, 'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart' i.e. according to your bible sin is not restricted to the act alone, it in fact begins long before the actual act.

On what grounds have you decided to split the thought from the act? Do you & the church really imagine you have the right to override the actual words of god?

And yet we don't see the Church campaigning to stop adulterers and fornicators from getting married.

This is the crux for me, homosexuality is singled out while other sins overlooked, ironically by the same institution who encourages homosexual altar boy rape by protecting the perps.

The only conclusion I can come to is the church Arthur so lovingly describe is a false church.

 

[porchrat]

As is being of the same sex. Or acting under compulsion or under the age of consent.

There are good reasons behind the latter two, not so for the first.

That you feel justified in putting these all together like that shows the problem with the church's attitude.

 

[ShaunSA]

Fornication isn't an impediment to marriage. Being already married to someone else is. As is being of the same sex. Or acting under compulsion or under the age of consent. The Catholic Church cannot marry people who are already married to someone else, for it cannot unjoin what God has already joined. As King Henry found out. Which is why he started his own church.

Except if it decides it wants to annul the marriage. So much for unjoining what God has already joined.

 

[Arthur]

Except if it decides it wants to annul the marriage. So much for unjoining what God has already joined.

No, a valid marriage cannot be annulled. Ever.

The question is: was the previous so-called (putative) marriage really in fact a marriage? It happens that people enter into what are called marriages (eg in the civil law) when in fact no marriage actually takes place. All a decree of nullity does is state that the second marriage is in fact a nullity since the first marriage is valid and still subsists, for example.

In the Catholic Church, marriages subsist until the death of a spouse. There is no such thing as divorce, ie the termination of a valid marriage. Of course people can go through a civil divorce, but that has no effect on the validity of the marriage in the eyes of the Church.

 

[ShaunSA]

No, a valid marriage cannot be annulled. Ever.

The question is: was the previous so-called (putative) marriage really in fact a marriage? It happens that people enter into what are called marriages (eg in the civil law) when in fact no marriage actually takes place. All a decree of nullity does is state that the second marriage is in fact a nullity since the first marriage is valid and still subsists, for example.

In the Catholic Church, marriages subsist until the death of a spouse. There is no such thing as divorce, ie the termination of a valid marriage. Of course people can go through a civil divorce, but that has no effect in the validity of the marriage in the eyes of the Church.

A valid marriage? According to who? The church or god? How does the church decide whether god wanted the couple joined or not? Do they have a hotline to god and ask him?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

This is the crux for me, homosexuality is singled out while other sins overlooked, ironically by the same institution who encourages homosexual altar boy rape by protecting the perps.

The only conclusion I can come to is the church Arthur so lovingly describe is a false church.

All we're given is this pat-on-the-head condescension about 'hating the sin, not the sinner'.

 

[Arthur]

A valid marriage? According to who? The church or god? How does the church decide whether god wanted the couple joined or not? Do they have a hotline to god and ask him?

It follows the teaching of the Master on the permanence and lifelong indissolubility of marriage.

And it exercises the authority given to her by Christ himself, to bind and loose. Always in fidelity to the express and revealed will of God.

 

[Arthur]

All we're given is this pat-on-the-head condescension about 'hating the sin, not the sinner'.

Thankfully that also applies to this sinner. The testament of that love is Life Himself immolated on the Cross.

 

[Paul Hjul]

And yet we don't see the Church campaigning to stop adulterers and fornicators from getting married.

actually read the document
its a particular point of discussion - cohabitation

 

[TofuMofu]

Thankfully that also applies to this sinner. The testament of that love is Life Himself immolated on the Cross.

Barking up the wrong tree around here.

Saying it's a sin because your bible says so is like me telling you, eating pork is a sin because the quran says so (the bible actually also says so, but people conveniently skip this part).

 

[grok]

Thankfully that also applies to this sinner. The testament of that love is Life Himself immolated on the Cross.

You haven't answered my question re Matthew 5:28 yet.