Is it time to move on?

[GNJ]

Oh, so in other words, I should say homosexuality is just a lifestyle and not a sin?

No, no I respect your opinions and I'm not saying you need to drop your view that it is a sin (although it is the act of homosexual sex that is the sin, the homosexuals themselves are not sinning just by merely being homosexual), I just feel as if you're coming across unnecessarily harshly and judgmentally. I'm sorry if that was not intentional on your part.

Just as I hope some one would tell me that I am committing a mortal sin if and when they see me committing a mortal sin.

Telling a homosexual that they are committing a mortal sin by acting on their desires is like telling an overweight person that they're overweight, okay? They KNOW, and it can be hurtful.

 

[MKJ]

Perhaps the wrong place for it, but;

I have often been called a "Pick and Choose Catholic", because there are certain views of the Church that I just don't agree with regarding homosexuality, abortion, the place of women and sex. We can all agree that the human race has moved forward tremendously since its dawn, both biologically and culturally, and with this progression more and more people have become accepting of homosexuality and abortion, and we now realize that women are equal to men and that sex is not just an act to procreate, but also a method of physically connecting with the the person you love.

And I was thinking today; if anyone were to acknowledge and accept these progressions, wouldn't it be God Himself? The being we spend our lives walking under the guidance of. I mean, this guy has been keeping an eye on us for thousands of years. You'd think that He would be the first one to get onto this stuff. I think that the Catholic Church may be a little behind the times with their policies (for lack of a better word) on this stuff.

Does any one agree with me? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?

There are many logical fallacies in your thinking.

One is assuming that all new ideas are better than old ideas.

 

[MikeK]

Oh, so in other words, I should say homosexuality is just a lifestyle and not a sin?

You should say that it is a sexual preference, not a lifestyle or a sin. You also shouldn't accuse homosexuals as a group os anything. It is wrong to say "Catholics Priests rape children." even though it isn't a false statement. Not all Catholic Priests rape children. Not all homosexuals are involved in sin or what you refer to as the "homosexual lifestyle".

Does that go for prostitution, too?

One cannot (voluntarily) be a prostitute without engaging in sin. One can be a homosexual without engaging in sin.

How about adultery? Is every sexual sin that is no longer "taboo" not to be considered a sin?

Adultery is a sin. Homosexuality is not a sin. Fornication is a sin. When homosexuals fornicate, homosexuals sin.

 

[steve_bakr]

Steve, the thing is, homosexuals have started to sue business for not doing things like photographing or providing flowers for the weddings. Who is to say how long it will be before they sue the Catholic Church for refusing to perform the wedding celebration?

In the attitude of this society, it is not so far fetched. And as far as the federal courts are concerned, but the time it reaches the Supreme Court, if Obama get re-elected, I would venture to dread that the it will be packed by ultra right wing liberal judges. I know, I know, the Congress gets a voice in it, but.....

Gay couple sues Asian restaurant that canceled wedding reception over bad 'feng shui' | The Raw Story

Gay couple sue caterer for canceling - UPI.com

Gay couple sues bed and breakfast owner for discrimination | Gay Star News

Janice

I see your concern. We as a society have not entirely worked out our co-existence with LGBT persons.

Here's a problem, though. What if a restaurant refuses to serve an LGBT couple? What if a pilot refuses to fly a plane carrying LGBT couples? That is why it must be worked out as a civil matter. The law must apply to everyone.

This problem, in a free society, seems to be two-fold. 1) Is the Church allowed to encroach on civil law? And, 2) Is civil law allowed to encroach on the Church? It's a very difficult problem. One that I suspect transcends the liberal-conservative divide.

A conservative Court could conceivably render a ruling that you don't not like. I suspect that those individual businesses that refused service to LGBT persons may be on the losing end, on account of civil rights laws.

But I would like to say that I never did like the idea of my faith being defined by what I am against. I want my faith to be defined by what I am for.

 

[catholicbybirth]

You should say that it is a sexual preference, not a lifestyle or a sin. You also shouldn't accuse homosexuals as a group os anything. It is wrong to say "Catholics Priests rape children." even though it isn't a false statement. Not all Catholic Priests rape children. Not all homosexuals are involved in sin or what you refer to as the "homosexual lifestyle".



One cannot (voluntarily) be a prostitute without engaging in sin. One can be a homosexual without engaging in sin.



Adultery is a sin. Homosexuality is not a sin. Fornication is a sin. When homosexuals fornicate, homosexuals sin.

I have no problem with people being homosexual if they don't have a problem with me being heterosexual. I had a woman who I considered a friend, when I was in college, stop being my friend when she propositioned me and I declined. I was willing to be her friend, but she would have nothing to do with me.

Are you saying that homosexuals main goal is to be celibate? That is not the impression that I have gotten through living in the USA for the last 50+ years.

I am trying my best to be chaste. If someone wants to point out the times that I am not and I am sinning, please do. I need to be put on the straight and narrow path once again, if that happens.

If someone is not having sex, they are not sexual at all. This is my point of view, but it explains why I talk as I do. I can not agree the same sex attraction is exactly the same as homosexual, because, unless there is sex involved, there is not sex at all.

Janice

 

[MikeK]

I have no problem with people being homosexual if they don't have a problem with me being heterosexual. I had a woman who I considered a friend, when I was in college, stop being my friend when she propositioned me and I declined. I was willing to be her friend, but she would have nothing to do with me.

That is disapointing. You don;t need friends like that.

Are you saying that homosexuals main goal is to be celibate? That is not the impression that I have gotten through living in the USA for the last 50+ years.

No, I'm not saying homosexuals anything. There exist homosexuals who want very much to sleep with every same sex partner they can. There exists homosexuals who want very much to be chaste. There exists homosexuals who would really like to open a bakery someday.

I am trying my best to be chaste. If someone wants to point out the times that I am not and I am sinning, please do. I need to be put on the straight and narrow path once again, if that happens.

I probably won't be privy to your violations of chastity, should they occur.

If someone is not having sex, they are not sexual at all.

I ensure you that even at the times when I'm not having sex, I remain a committed heterosexual.

 

[catholicbybirth]

That is disapointing. You don;t need friends like that.



No, I'm not saying homosexuals anything. There exist homosexuals who want very much to sleep with every same sex partner they can. There exists homosexuals who want very much to be chaste. There exists homosexuals who would really like to open a bakery someday.



I probably won't be privy to your violations of chastity, should they occur.



I ensure you that even at the times when I'm not having sex, I remain a committed heterosexual.

Perhaps that is the difference between you and me. If I am not having sex, since I am not married, I have no intention of every having sex again. But if I did, it would be with my husband, not a woman.

Janice

 

[catholicbybirth]

No, no I respect your opinions and I'm not saying you need to drop your view that it is a sin (although it is the act of homosexual sex that is the sin, the homosexuals themselves are not sinning just by merely being homosexual), I just feel as if you're coming across unnecessarily harshly and judgmentally. I'm sorry if that was not intentional on your part.



Telling a homosexual that they are committing a mortal sin by acting on their desires is like telling an overweight person that they're overweight, okay? They KNOW, and it can be hurtful.

Do they know? I think not. Why don't they? Because then they would have to choose between right and wrong, and nobody really likes to believe they are in the wrong.

Janice

 

[GNJ]

Do they know? I think not. Why don't they? Because then they would have to choose between right and wrong, and nobody really likes to believe they are in the wrong.

Let me rephrase that; they know that some people think they are committing a mortal sin. Whether they believe they are or not is something else, but either way they do not need to be told.

 

[catholicbybirth]

Let me rephrase that; they know that some people think they are committing a mortal sin. Whether they believe they are or not is something else, but either way they do not need to be told.

Why not? If someone I knew were preparing to rob a bank and I caught wind of it, I would most definitely tell him/her how wrong it is. I would only point out that it is a mortal sin if the person was Catholic. Why not tell those I know that having sex with someone of the same sex is a mortal sin?

Janice

 

[Fish and Bread]

At least in Europe we see the rise of nationalism everywere.

I hope not. The last time there was a "rise in nationalism" in Europe, it resulted in Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Nationalism isn't a Christian value.

one with a leader that is truly a man and makes Rick Santorum looks like some social liberal.

That's the sort of thing I have nightmares about.

 

[Elysium]

faith and morals do not change

stances on science, which is always changing and advancing, arent part of the deposit of faith so they are free to change with the more info we gather

but morals dont "evolve". our understanding of why things are moral or immortal evolves, but homosexual activity will always be considered sinful, abortion will always be considered sinful since it is murder, etc.

if you arent willing to accept that then im not sure catholicism is your thing

 

[Root of Jesse]

Apart from how the Church has changed its official views many times. For example, the Church now accepts Evolution.

When was the Church in the business of science? The Church says we may believe Evolution, to a point, but says that we cannot abandon the Genesis narrative.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I really would recommend talking about these things to a priest or minister in person about whether or not stance.
I will say, however, that the Church had never really made an official stance on the Creation story. St. Augustine himself considered it possible that the creation narratives weren't literal (how could they be, there are two competing stories!).

Understood properly, the two Creation narratives tell the same story from a different perspective. The point is that God created everything.
Also, properly understood, creation does not conflict with the theory of evolution. But we must believe in one set of First Parents.

(Now, if we wanted to talk about things like usury, slavery, definition of adultery, understanding of religious freedom, those (moral) teachings have changed).

No, they haven't. In fact, the Church was the first entity to define that slavery and usury were wrong. Usury, fwiw, doesn't mean you cannot get interest from lent money...

You're right, sex is not just about procreation, but the Church holds that the possibility for procreation during sex is still an integral part of it.
The Church holds that direct and willful abortion is always wrong because we cannot know when the soul enters the body. It is clear that the genetic make-up and potentiality is present for a living person at the moment of conception. We are constantly moving towards our full potential, so why not kill us at any moment we are not useful or desired by our parents, government, etc? This is one of a few reasons why the Church will not (nor should it) budge on the issue.

But, the fact that you are asking these questions is okay. I think struggling with belief is a normal part of development as a person. But, you should talk with some folk in the real world (like a priest or minister) about your questions. People on the internet tend to get judgy.
A good question to consider is: Do I still accept the Creed? What reasons do I have for remaining in the Church, what draws me?
It is okay to question and struggle with it, our faith wavers (look at the apostles, they weren't always the best followers). Bring these questions to God.

It's ok to struggle with the beliefs and reconcile them against the modern day mores. But it's not ok to go against them. You may not understand them, but you must obey them.
FWIW, everyone has struggles, some with alcohol, some with drugs, some with sexual sins. Some with same-sex attraction, some with abortion. The point is that, if we repent, we can be forgiven. We must really try not to commit those sins over and over.

 

[Fantine]

Yes, I really do think that the financial contributions of the "global north" are the only things that prevent "the new Christianity" from dive-bombing into the 8th century--their spiritual home.

 

[Erose]

Oh, oh I suppose I should have been more clear: I'M not planning on going anywhere, I was just putting my thoughts that the Catholic Church itself maybe should ~move on from some of their, in my opinion, outdated views. I still love the Church, my parish and my role within the church and I wouldn't dream of leaving (despite the fact that some may see me as more of a burden).

I think you have fallen into the trap that modern man is more enlightened than our ancestors, and that falsehood is dangerous. In the Roman Empire homosexuality was rampant as well as other sexual deviant behavior. Abortion and infanticide was rampant. If anything our society is regressing morally and philosophically.

Anyway even though these were accepted behaviors during this time, Christianity did not accept them, and they won't accept them today. So I would recommend two things for you. Read MikeK's outstanding post above and don't hold your breath.

God bless.

 

[steve_bakr]

faith and morals do not change

stances on science, which is always changing and advancing, arent part of the deposit of faith so they are free to change with the more info we gather

but morals dont "evolve". our understanding of why things are moral or immortal evolves, but homosexual activity will always be considered sinful, abortion will always be considered sinful since it is murder, etc.

if you arent willing to accept that then im not sure catholicism is your thing

He's asking questions, but he has said he is not planning on leaving the Catholic Church.

From my reading of Christian history, I have learned that doctrine develops, as Blessed John Henry Newman would say.

Sometimes our understanding of what is moral changes as the centuries reveal to us more about our faith. For example, in the matters of slavery, usury, and democracy. Examples are available in the history books. I don't feel threatened by this; I rather feel encouraged.

I think it is fair to ask if more might be revealed to us as difficult life situations face us as individuals and as a Church. Even the Catechism says that the Church will learn more about our faith as the centuries go by.

Another thing I learned about the changes in the Church's positions throughout history is that almost invariably they are resisted, even for centuries.

Blessed John Henry Newman was fired as an editor by his Bishop for his writings, called "the most dangerous man in England," and under suspicion by the Vatican until the Pope died. His successor made Newman a Cardinal.

This cycle of suspicion, investigation, discipline, and ultimately recognition is a common one for many of our famous theologians.

But change happens. Whether or not that change is in matters of faith and morals is a rather painstaking and hairsplitting discussion. One thing I believe, however, is that we as the holy Catholic Church will continue on as an amazingly diverse Body.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Let me rephrase that; they know that some people think they are committing a mortal sin. Whether they believe they are or not is something else, but either way they do not need to be told.

I agree, and in the order of being compassionate and sensitive to those persons, we should first emphasize the mercy and love of Christ... stress the importance of Holy Communion... and when it comes down to it, THEN stress that we must abandon mortal sin to partake.

I have trouble because I know people who take the Lord's name in vain and then take communion... it scares me

 

[steve_bakr]

Understood properly, the two Creation narratives tell the same story from a different perspective. The point is that God created everything.
Also, properly understood, creation does not conflict with the theory of evolution. But we must believe in one set of First Parents.
No, they haven't. In fact, the Church was the first entity to define that slavery and usury were wrong. Usury, fwiw, doesn't mean you cannot get interest from lent money...

It's ok to struggle with the beliefs and reconcile them against the modern day mores. But it's not ok to go against them. You may not understand them, but you must obey them.
FWIW, everyone has struggles, some with alcohol, some with drugs, some with sexual sins. Some with same-sex attraction, some with abortion. The point is that, if we repent, we can be forgiven. We must really try not to commit those sins over and over.

Fact correction. According to Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson, the Church condemned slavery belatedly. It was the Quakers who first took a stance against it.

Also, usury meant any and all interest. In our day, the word has evolved to mean something like excessively high interest. Usury, in the original sense, is condemned in the Old Testament.

BTW, I love our Church, but I'm not comfortable with revisionism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Just tell me if I'm going to have to learn Latin, and whether I should start right now.

I agree for the most part with the quotations you have provided. But I think that the Catholicism in South America might be different than in Africa. Also, I think the Northern Hemisphere will still be relevant on account of the concentration of wealth.

If Catholicism is different in South America than North America than Africa than Europe, it's not Catholicism...