tommy2bad wrote: » We were when I posted that. Yes, you are right, we no longer hold the biblical low standards as the final arbitration. As I said we have developed a consensus on marriage that is very different, its still justifiable in a biblical sense but would be unrecognisable to the people who wrote the bible. The work of the holy spirit or secularisation?
tommy2bad wrote: » Well that context is canon law, this is a discussion on a public forum. I'm just pointing out how words carry shades of meaning and inference. You may say the people using natural expect everyone to read it in the legal definition they do but I doubt that. I may be far more cynical than is good for me but I suspect they understood well the implications their words carry.
Absolam wrote: » Actually, we weren't we were looking at the validity of marriages in a Christian sense, remember? Which obviously extends beyond the Bibles selection of valid marriages, because various Churches (notably the Catholic Church) have developed a body of law and definitions that extend beyond that selection, though that's not to say the whatever you think the Biblical standards are are necessarily low, simply not as extensive. Nor do I think you can attribute it to secularisation, if anything it's an extension of and expansion on what would otherwise have been a relatively mundane and uncomplicated secular event. It's a public forum on Christianity though, so Canon Law is inevitably going to make an appearance. And when the magesterium uses the term 'natural' in reference to marriage it would be foolish to think they're not doing it other than in a legal sense. Of course they understand the implications of their words, and I have no doubt those implications are deliberate. I'm simply saying that it seems to me they're approaching it from the opposite direction from you; natural isn't used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage" as you seem to think, it's used to demonstrate the lesser nature of other marriages to the supernatural marriage of the Church.
aloyisious wrote: » I get to better understand your P.O.V. of Marriage in it's two aspects. The Christian definition of marriage, in so far that it's version of marriage comes directly from the word of God, put's it on a different plane from secular marriage, seeing it as variously - [Protestants - Sacred/Holy] AND [the RC Church - Sacramental or an efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ].
aloyisious wrote: » Thank you both for your rapid and coincidentally-timed responses to my post.@solodeogloria: I thought it best to reference sources to read up on the topic, rather than rely solely on others here. I'm sorry if my seeking knowledge beyond what you would want to restrict me to upset's you. Thank's for your moderating-style input on what the thread should be used for.
aloyisious wrote: » In fairness, I'll seek knowledge from knowledgeable sources on line at will, ta very much. Links are links are links........ I think I'll drop this here, instead of going in a circle with you again, ta very much.
Pope Francis has said that the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people for the way it has treated them.
Cabaal wrote: » http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36636845 So the way Catholics treated gay people was wrong, even in the eyes of the Pope. Must be a kick in the teeth for the gay hating Catholics out there
robdonn wrote: » “The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?”When are they ever going to find a cure for that condition?? :rolleyes: By saying that Catholics should not judge them still infers that there is something to judge. So good for him for trying to get Christians to not be cruel, but still...
Cabaal wrote: » Must be a kick in the teeth for the gay hating Catholics out there
lazybones32 wrote: » What an odd statement! In a topic that addresses apologising and forgiveness, you focus on "the gay hating Catholics out there".
MrPudding wrote: » You might think it odd, but would you not agree that it is a valid observation? MrP
aloyisious wrote: » Would you not think the gay hating Catholics out there should follow the Pope's instruction to them?
lazybones32 wrote: » I follow the pope's advice about not swallowing red herrings; you should too.
Cabaal wrote: » You don't think an organization that for hundreds of years has hated gay people, treated them liker scum and pressured for laws to make being gay illegal doesn't create people that hate gay people? Its completely accurate for me to say gay hating catholics, after all they most certainly exist....but thankfully such bigoted idiots are in a minority now. Apologizing while still referring to a gay person has having "condition" isn't much of an apology...unless you're a foolish person who ignores the condition reference, it shows the church still hasn't changed its spots on the issue, its all words rather then actions.
tommy2bad wrote: » In fairness condition is a step forward from disorder. It might be only carefully chosen word play but it does show some movement however glacial the pace.
Cabaal wrote: » You don't think an organization that for hundreds of years has hated gay people, treated them liker scum and pressured for laws to make being gay illegal doesn't create people that hate gay people? Its completely accurate for me to say gay hating catholics, after all they most certainly exist....but thankfully such bigoted idiots are in a minority now.
Cabaal wrote: » Apologizing while still referring to a gay person has having "condition" isn't much of an apology...unless you're a foolish person who ignores the condition reference, it shows the church still hasn't changed its spots on the issue, its all words rather then actions.
lazybones32 wrote: » No, I don't think any of that... He didn't apologise. He said the Church should apologise for how certain groups of people (not just gays) were treated.
lazybones32 wrote: » He didn't apologise. He said the Church should apologise for how certain groups of people (not just gays) were treated.
