The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

aloyisious

I wrote about the withdrawal by the C of I of a speaking invitation to Dr Silvoso. I did not mention marriage in that post, only his stated position to homosexuals.

I am not at all confused about the state's position on marriage, nor that of the C of I's position on marriage, or that of other religions on marriage. I was aware of the difference before you wrote about it. I fully accept and like the fact that there is nothing in civil marriage law here that could be used to force any religious minister into performing or officiating at a civil (secular) law marriage between two persons of the same sex.

You used the words "marriage equality" and gave the stated view of the C of I on marriage, that it is a union between a man and a woman. That introduced marriage into this chat between you and I.

You also introduced the word "secular" into our chat. I responded by offering my understanding on what civil law marriage is, that it is secular and therefore totally different from what both you and I know is the C of I's view on marriage. I believe that you and I agree on that difference so i reckon the chat on marriage between you and I is concluded.

An Ciarraioch

In this fortnight's Hot Press, Archbishop Martin re-iterated Catholic teaching that being homosexual was not a sin, but that the commission of the act was. Accordingly, it would seem that a Catholic homosexual has two options, the first, namely, lifelong chastity, seemingly a heavy mental and emotional burden. The other, entering into a heterosexual relationship, risks depriving their partner of genuine emotional love, and while such a marriage can beget children, the parent-offspring relationship must be tempered by circumstance. It seems strange for God to test 1% of people in such a manner, but presumably they must resist temptation, just as heterosexuals must avoid adultery?

alma73

The chruchs teachings are very much based on following the Living person of Christ. When he is the centre of our lives then all is possible. The rules for a gay person are the same as a straight person. Sex has a meaning in natural law.

Kiwi in IE

I would imagine it's only a 'test of chastity' for those who wish to follow Catholic doctrine, and is not applicable to anyone else. I certainly didn't see being unmarried as a 'test of chastity', or see any benefit in remaining 'chaste' due to the fact I was not. I really struggle with religious people who seem to think that the doctrines of their religion apply unquestioningly to everyone, without regard for the differing views and beliefs of others, it is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Catholic doctrine on relationships, apply only to those who choose to follow it, not the population at large.

Mrs OBumble

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would imagine it's only a 'test of chastity' for those who wish to follow Catholic doctrine ....

I think you'll find that it's far more than just Catholics who follow the doctrine under discussion.

And since this is the Christianity forum, rather than politics or whatever, then it's fair to assume that readers are people who try to live according to Christian doctrines, and discuss issues from that point of view.



OP, I think you've summed it up pretty well. Personally I believe that the doctrines need to be re-considered in light of what we now know about human sexuality and scripture scholarship.

Even without going into the details of those areas, if it's OK for an opposite-sex-attracted couple to get married even if they can't have children (eg due to age or medical conditions), then I don't see why a similar relationship isn't possible for a same-sex-attracted couple. Under the current teaching the only way for a same-sex-attracted person to have an intimate relationship is to live a lie, and this imposes a cruel burden on both them and their spouse.

endacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's far more than just Catholics who follow the doctrine under discussion.

And since this is the Christianity forum, rather than politics or whatever, then it's fair to assume that readers are people who try to live according to Christian doctrines, and discuss issues from that point of view.



OP, I think you've summed it up pretty well. Personally I believe that the doctrines need to be re-considered in light of what we now know about human sexuality and scripture scholarship.

Even without going into the details of those areas, if it's OK for an opposite-sex-attracted couple to get married even if they can't have children (eg due to age or medical conditions), then I don't see why a similar relationship isn't possible for a same-sex-attracted couple. Under the current teaching the only way for a same-sex-attracted person to have an intimate relationship is to live a lie, and this imposes a cruel burden on both them and their spouse.

Can't rewrite doctrine. Which is why it's a safe bet to presume doctrine is wrong.

If a gay person chose to suppress the sexual aspect of their humanity, based on a belief that they'd get into post morten trouble with the purported big harsh auxiliary super-ego in the Sky, that'd be their private business, I suppose. If they told anybody else to do the same, and for the same reason, well, that'd be a bit sad.

Kiwi in IE

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's far more than just Catholics who follow the doctrine under discussion.

And since this is the Christianity forum, rather than politics or whatever, then it's fair to assume that readers are people who try to live according to Christian doctrines, and discuss issues from that point of view.

I am aware that more than just Catholics follow these doctrines, however the OP was referring to comments made by a Catholic Archbishop in a mainstream magazine and to the options available to LGBT people who are Catholic in particular. The Catholic Archbishop seems to be aiming his unsavoury message to
the population at large, rather than just Catholics, seeing as he has chosen a magazine that is not specifically aimed at Catholics to voice it.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Saying something like that in a mainstream magazine? I think he needs to hire a PR person.

MrPudding

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In this fortnight's Hot Press, Archbishop Martin re-iterated Catholic teaching that being homosexual was not a sin, but that the commission of the act was. Accordingly, it would seem that a Catholic homosexual has two options, the first, namely, lifelong chastity, seemingly a heavy mental and emotional burden. The other, entering into a heterosexual relationship, risks depriving their partner of genuine emotional love, and while such a marriage can beget children, the parent-offspring relationship must be tempered by circumstance. It seems strange for God to test 1% of people in such a manner, but presumably they must resist temptation, just as heterosexuals must avoid adultery?

I think I might be a little slow today, what does the bit in bold mean?

MrP

A_Sober_Paddy

What a load of bollocks. Following the rules from a book thousands of years old. A book that forbids eating shellfish and rabbit. Also there is some nonsense of taking off hands of wife's who try and break up a fighting husband. All these stuff is being pumped out of an organisation that systematically raped, molested children as well as sell children via the Magdalene laundries...and still owe millions in compinsation to its victoms

solodeogloria

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's far more than just Catholics who follow the doctrine under discussion.

And since this is the Christianity forum, rather than politics or whatever, then it's fair to assume that readers are people who try to live according to Christian doctrines, and discuss issues from that point of view.

OP, I think you've summed it up pretty well. Personally I believe that the doctrines need to be re-considered in light of what we now know about human sexuality and scripture scholarship.

Even without going into the details of those areas, if it's OK for an opposite-sex-attracted couple to get married even if they can't have children (eg due to age or medical conditions), then I don't see why a similar relationship isn't possible for a same-sex-attracted couple. Under the current teaching the only way for a same-sex-attracted person to have an intimate relationship is to live a lie, and this imposes a cruel burden on both them and their spouse.

Good morning!

Firstly, to pin my colours to the mast - I'm an evangelical Christian, with a Reformed sola-scriptura basis to my beliefs.

If I can just abstract your thinking a step.

If we claim that we can re-evaluate doctrine in the light of X, Y or Z, aren't we just saying that God was wrong?

Can you see how that it is problematic for people of a Christian persuasion logically?

As I've said on the mega-thread, there are people in the church who struggle with all kinds of sins (myself included). We even fall into those sins (myself included) from time to time. However, there's a key difference between falling into sin and earnestly desiring to repent and turn back to God, and falling into sin and declaring it to be good. All kinds of people make all kinds of sacrifices for following Jesus. Christians acknowledge that we are a work in progress, and that Jesus has begun a work in the believer until the point when He returns (Philippians 1:6), but there is no Biblical justification for declaring what God has said to be wrong to be good.

In much the same way that it is unacceptable for a Christian to inflate a particular sin as being worse above and beyond all other forms of sin, it is also unacceptable for a Christian to claim that the particular sin that they struggle with is better or more good than the sins that others commit.

Also, it's worth adding that I don't believe the Christian opposition to homosexual acts is about pro-creation. I've covered that in some thoughts on the megathread also.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

tommy2bad

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. Following the rules from a book thousands of years old. A book that forbids eating shellfish and rabbit. Also there is some nonsense of taking off hands of wife's who try and break up a fighting husband. All these stuff is being pumped out of an organisation that systematically raped, molested children as well as sell children via the Magdalene laundries...and still owe millions in compinsation to its victoms

Indeed. Archbishop Martin is trying to present the RCC position, as is his right, its just a little odd that he fails to see the plank in his own eye when lecturing others on sexual morality.

JaCrispy

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

All these stuff is being pumped out of an organisation that systematically raped, molested children....

You should read the charter buddy before posting your hyperbole.

These weren't the actions of the catholic church but by a minority of its members. It's a bit like saying Islam is a terrorist religion because a minority are members of ISIS. :rolleyes:

A_Sober_Paddy

JaCrispy wrote: »

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

All these stuff is being pumped out of an organisation that systematically raped, molested children....

You should read the charter buddy before posting your hyperbole.

These weren't the actions of the catholic church but by a minority of its members. It's a bit like saying Islam is a terrorist religion because a minority are members of ISIS. :rolleyes:

Wow just wow ...it was a large part of the organisation...

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic.

If people wish to discuss abuses carried out by members of the RCC, please use the Clerical Child abuse thread.

Thanks for your attention.

eviltwin

JaCrispy wrote: »

You should read the charter buddy before posting your hyperbole.

These weren't the actions of the catholic church but by a minority of its members. It's a bit like saying Islam is a terrorist religion because a minority are members of ISIS. :rolleyes:

Actions of the minority covered up by the ones in charge. The same people who were never held accountable for their actions. And yet two people of the same sex having a consenting relationship is wrong. :rolleyes:

galljga1

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Wow just wow ...it was a large part of the organisation...

Did not Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict not issue a letter instructing his bishops that "cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,... Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication."

Did no-one see anything wrong with this?

stefanovich

JaCrispy wrote: »

You should read the charter buddy before posting your hyperbole.

These weren't the actions of the catholic church but by a minority of its members. It's a bit like saying Islam is a terrorist religion because a minority are members of ISIS. :rolleyes:

Well Islam promotes child marriage so that's not somewhere I think we want this conversation going.

galljga1

Is doctrine not re-evaluated on a regular basis?
Does Limbo exist anymore?
Does Purgatory exist?
Are we allowed shellfish? mixing of cloth?
Why not re-evaluate the churches position on homesexuality?

uck51js9zml2yt

galljga1 wrote: »

Is doctrine not re-evaluated on a regular basis?
Does Limbo exist anymore?
Does Purgatory exist?
Are we allowed shellfish? mixing of cloth?
Why not re-evaluate the churches position on homesexuality?

Does the RCC represent all Christians? Btw I agree with Sola!

Kiwi in IE

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed. Archbishop Martin is trying to present the RCC position, as is his right, its just a little odd that he fails to see the plank in his own eye when lecturing others on sexual morality.

Indeed it is the Archbishops right to publicly present the RCC position. A position which is grossly insulting and likely results in a large number of people feeling outraged. The religion which the Archbishop pedals is protected by law from people uttering or publishing anything that is considered to be grossly insulting and results in a large number of its adherents feeling outraged. I am unsure why the feelings of Catholics (or any other religion) are considered by the law to be more important, and more worthy of protection than the feelings of those who are not heterosexual. It's time societal religious privilege was removed and everyone in society was treated equally.

Kiwi in IE

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

Does the RCC represent all Christians?

It likes to think that it represents not just all Christians, but the entire population, and that its doctrines should therefore be reflected in law.

IamtheWalrus

'God' this is depressing.

solodeogloria

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It likes to think that it represents not just all Christians, but the entire population, and that its doctrines should therefore be reflected in law.

Good morning!

It's quite obvious that the Catholic Church shouldn't rule society. I find the idea quite terrifying in fact.

Of course people are free to live non-Christian lives and I personally at the very least have no interest in forcing anyone by law to hold to Christian views.

In this respect I'm entirely a secularist.

However in terms of Christianity, I refuse to have what is sinful declared as good in church. That is pastoral negligence that could lead to judgement for numerous people. Unrepentant sin is dangerous.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Kiwi in IE

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's quite obvious that the Catholic Church shouldn't rule society. I find the idea quite terrifying in fact.

Of course people are free to live non-Christian lives and I personally at the very least have no interest in forcing anyone by law to hold to Christian views.

In this respect I'm entirely a secularist.

However in terms of Christianity, I refuse to have what is sinful declared as good in church. That is pastoral negligence that could lead to judgement for numerous people. Unrepentant sin is dangerous.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I have no problem with any of the above solodeogloria. The key to what you have said that causes me to have no problem is 'in church'. Yourself and many other Christians seem to have the ability to seperate church and society, a skill that the RCC is lacking.

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

If we claim that we can re-evaluate doctrine in the light of X, Y or Z, aren't we just saying that God was wrong?

Can you see how that it is problematic for people of a Christian persuasion logically?

Indeed, though more of a problem for the church than society perhaps, where the decline of the former could in some part be attributed to their intransigent stance. I find Catholicism in Ireland fascinating in one sense, in that while people remain nominally Catholic they quickly ditch items of doctrine they find unpalatable regardless of what the hierarchy might demand. Quite heartening when you think about it.

hinault

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In this fortnight's Hot Press, Archbishop Martin re-iterated Catholic teaching that being homosexual was not a sin, but that the commission of the act was. Accordingly, it would seem that a Catholic homosexual has two options, the first, namely, lifelong chastity, seemingly a heavy mental and emotional burden. The other, entering into a heterosexual relationship, risks depriving their partner of genuine emotional love, and while such a marriage can beget children, the parent-offspring relationship must be tempered by circumstance. It seems strange for God to test 1% of people in such a manner, but presumably they must resist temptation, just as heterosexuals must avoid adultery?

Sexual relations outside of marriage, marriage being holy matrimony, are sinful.

The person not in a state of holy matrimony has to lead a chaste life in order to avoid sin.
Archbishop Martin is reiterating Church teaching.

solodeogloria

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, though more of a problem for the church than society perhaps, where the decline of the former could in some part be attributed to their intransigent stance. I find Catholicism in Ireland fascinating in one sense, in that while people remain nominally Catholic they quickly ditch items of doctrine they find unpalatable regardless of what the hierarchy might demand. Quite heartening when you think about it.

Good morning!

This post makes an assumption that people leave churches because they are not liberal enough.

I don't know if I agree with that. In most cases the churches that are still growing are conservative in respect to this and other issues. The churches that are in decline are broadly speaking liberal, or churches which have a highly nominal congregation.

This is what I posited in the other thread about England and Wales.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

Sexual relations outside of marriage, marriage being holy matrimony, are sinful.

The person not in a state of holy matrimony has to lead a chaste life in order to avoid sin.
Archbishop Martin is reiterating Church teaching.

The only part of this that I agree with is the last sentence.

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

This post makes an assumption that people leave churches because they are not liberal enough.

I don't know if I agree with that. In most cases the churches that are still growing are conservative in respect to this and other issues. The churches that are in decline are broadly speaking liberal, or churches which have a highly nominal congregation.

This is what I posited in the other thread about England and Wales.

Good morning,

I'd suggest the scale from liberal to conservative is a very subjective one. So while those belonging to more conservative churches might consider the vast majority of Catholics to belong to a more liberal church, many of those Catholics might in turn consider their church to be too conservative (regressive even) for their own understanding of what is good or bad for society. The overwhelming vote to allow gay marriage is a case in point, where the hierarchy wanted one thing based on doctrine, and the nominally Catholic population voted against that hierarchy. While numbers in conservative churches might be on the up, here in Ireland they're a rather small minority. I think you'll notice more progressive Christian churches are also increasing in size over here, bishop Michael Burrows take on the same sex marriage vote was very interesting for example.