Ask A Catholic II

[GhostWriter16]

It's not what you think it means, if it does I'll say hello to Blessed Newman for you in Hell, now I think we both perfectly understand what is wrong with that...

Wait, Christians can still sin, can't he? If he had a romantic relationship with a man but no sex, maybe that's a venial sin?

(This coming from someone without knowledge, I'm just speculating on possibilities.)

 

[Takhisis]

Eh? it would be friendship… a little bit like Turk and J.D.

 

[civ_king]

Wait, Christians can still sin, can't he? If he had a romantic relationship with a man but no sex, maybe that's a venial sin?

(This coming from someone without knowledge, I'm just speculating on possibilities.)

You have to be repentant to have the sin forgiven

Eh? it would be friendship… a little bit like Turk and J.D.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You have to be repentant to have the sin forgiven

As far as I understand it, only if its a mortal sin. Venial sins can be purged in purgatory, can't they?

 

[civ_king]

As far as I understand it, only if its a mortal sin. Venial sins can be purged in purgatory, can't they?

But if Jehoshua was correct it would be mortal sin.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But if Jehoshua was correct it would be mortal sin.

This is what I'm tryin to discover, did he say it was mortally sinful? Or just that it was sinful? I never saw a comment on the Gravity of the sin.

 

[civ_king]

This is what I'm tryin to discover, did he say it was mortally sinful? Or just that it was sinful? I never saw a comment on the Gravity of the sin.

I was trying to point out that he misunderstood the question

 

[Jehoshua]

I never said anything about sin in relationship to the post in question, and/or gravity of that, and I am not going to do so now just to let you ponder

 

[Takhisis]

Just in case, I have your Sword of Righteousness here, Jehoshua.

 

[civ_king]

Gloria in excelsis Deo!



Okay, let me try again at an explanation.

In what I have been attempting to talk about agape love radiates from the Holy Spirit to the couple who exchange love primarily as agape love and also as philia. This is as opposed to friends who exchange love as philia and a married couple who exchange it as eros and agape love.

I never said anything about sin in relationship to the post in question, and/or gravity of that, and I am not going to do so now just to let you ponder

response to above?

Still pondering?

Just in case, I have your Sword of Righteousness here, Jehoshua.

You know he prefers his axe

 

[Jehoshua]

I can use both a sword of righteousness and an axe, at the same time ofc

and No I am not pondering, I am simply abstaining until I deem the time appropriate to respond.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just for the sake of argument, what if the choice is between being adopted by such a couple (Or even a real gay couple) or being left on the street?

I fully understand and agree that a kid would be best with a father and a mother, but it obviously isn't reality that every kid get that, otherwise they wouldn't be orphans.

So, barring that, I'm seeing a few different choices for a kid that won't be getting a home (Listed in random order to be sorted out later, and these options include options that are clearly sinful. This is only a list to sort of sort out the different options for a kid who won't be getting a father AND a mother.)

They could be raised by a gay couple (Sexual or non.)

They could be raised by a single parent.

They could be in and out of foster homes.

They could be left in an orphanage.

They could be raised by parents who are neglecting their kids (Which goes to show that a father and mother don't inherently make a family "Ideal" in any sense.)

Or even (Heaven forbid) they could be aborted and never get to be born at all.

While I'm no friend to the "Gay agenda" if a gay adoption needs to happen to stop a baby in the womb from being murdered, I'm all for it.

Even leaving the kid in an orphanage or in and out of foster homes doesn't seem as ideal to me.

While a gay couple isn't really a real couple (In my opinion, and I'm guessing the Vatican agrees with me) if the absolute worst thing you can say about a situation is they are being raised by two males or two females, that seems a better fate than most of the fates above (The single parent may or may not be better.)

Therefore, I do think that the post I quoted above is being very "Idealist." There are a LOT of problems in homes, and speaking for the child's growth alone, I'd consdier gay parents to be a somewhat minor issue, at least in comparison to being neglected, not having a consistent home at all (Foster homes) or (Heaven forbid) being murdered before ever seeing the world at all. I do await a response to this, as I do think its a subject worth defining.

If this isn't something you'd like to discuss in thread, let me know and I'll PM it.

Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're working on responding.

 

[civ_king]

If this isn't something you'd like to discuss in thread, let me know and I'll PM it.

Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're working on responding.

Sorry, the teachings of the Catholic Church are the teachings of the Catholic Church. They are not negotiable. There is/are no "but what if...?" exception(s).

I personally find it pernicious, now indubitably it was not intended to be such, but it is.

Sometimes the long term solutions can be very painful in the short term. Ultimately what is needed is for the modern world to rediscover its moral roots so that people do think about others. In the modern world when one is incapable of having a child naturally the the solution offered is IVF, they do not think about the children who desperately crave love and a home, no, the obvious solutions to everything is all about them.

 

[GhostWriter16]

A few comments.

First of all, I do find it interesting how the Catholic Church is totally and unchangeably opposed to birth control, and yet is totally unwilling to put kids in a less than perfect home. Reality says the Church is wrong.

Just a question, if Jesus himself were the judge, and a kid had to either go with gay parents or live on the street, can you see Jesus putting the kid on the street? I don't.

The thing is, heterosexual home =/= good home. I have seen some SCREWED UP heterosexual homes. SCREWED UP.

While I am willing to agree that gay parents can be a pretty big flaw in the home, there are far worse flaws.

And "Gettiing people back to morality" won't solve our problems. Only Jesus Christ can go that. And 100 years ago, there were as many lost people as there are now. More "Morallly correct" lost people, but still lost.

I was hoping that someone here could address my points, but I guess if this cannot be done (Since the Church is automatically right) I guess we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Arakhor]

"The Church is always right" is very little different to "the Bible is always right". That's why there are so many different interpretations what God's word actually means.

 

[GhostWriter16]

"The Church is always right" is very little different to "the Bible is always right". That's why there are so many different interpretations what God's word actually means.

Theoretically, no its not. But it still needs to be at least possible to defend what it says. Perhaps nobody here is totally sure of the Church's reasoning, but surely one exists?

 

[Arakhor]

Presumably the reasoning is "all life is sacred and therefore even preventing contraception is defying God's will" and "homosexuals are sinners and should never be allowed to love, let alone be parents". Once you have those two viewpoints, you're not left with a lot of wiggle-room, are you?

 

[civ_king]

A few comments.

First of all, I do find it interesting how the Catholic Church is totally and unchangeably opposed to birth control, and yet is totally unwilling to put kids in a less than perfect home. Reality says the Church is wrong.

Just a question, if Jesus himself were the judge, and a kid had to either go with gay parents or live on the street, can you see Jesus putting the kid on the street? I don't.

The thing is, heterosexual home =/= good home. I have seen some SCREWED UP heterosexual homes. SCREWED UP.

While I am willing to agree that gay parents can be a pretty big flaw in the home, there are far worse flaws.

And "Gettiing people back to morality" won't solve our problems. Only Jesus Christ can go that. And 100 years ago, there were as many lost people as there are now. More "Morallly correct" lost people, but still lost.

I was hoping that someone here could address my points, but I guess if this cannot be done (Since the Church is automatically right) I guess we can just agree to disagree.

Sometimes the long term solutions can be very painful in the short term.

For example the national debt, do you stick your head in the ground and hide from it or do we make serious and painful cuts to stop the problem in the future? Pain now and much less later or no pain now and excruciating pain later?

 

[timtofly]

Sometimes the long term solutions can be very painful in the short term.

For example the national debt, do you stick your head in the ground and hide from it or do we make serious and painful cuts to stop the problem in the future? Pain now and much less later or no pain now and excruciating pain later?

Somehow the government has been passing that pain forward for the last 40 years. I doubt it can be pushed much longer. Could it be that the church has just failed to see the difference between sin and a hardened heart? Some times God allows people to no longer have a choice, thus limiting them from do more harm to themselves, than what has already been done. I am talking about society as a whole and not on an individual basis. Once God gives up on society, there is really nothing the church can do but pray that God has mercy and that men will realize the hopelessness of the situation and return to Him. Drug addicts who are enabled to keep doing what they do will never change. It takes drastic measures to go through rehab, and that only helps the individual. It does not stop drug dealers from selling drugs to other people.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Presumably the reasoning is "all life is sacred and therefore even preventing contraception is defying God's will" and "homosexuals are sinners and should never be allowed to love, let alone be parents". Once you have those two viewpoints, you're not left with a lot of wiggle-room, are you?

Taking both of these views to their extreme just leaves more suffering I feel.

Sometimes the long term solutions can be very painful in the short term.

For example the national debt, do you stick your head in the ground and hide from it or do we make serious and painful cuts to stop the problem in the future? Pain now and much less later or no pain now and excruciating pain later?

I really just feel like I'm arguing now, so this will be the last thing I say.

Birth control does not cause ANY suffering. It does not harm anyone, either the parties involved or anyone else. The only way you can justify it is if you think the chief reason for sex is to have kids, in which case...

Doing so just to leave them in the street or broken homes is just immoral.

The problem is when people are irresponsible and have kids they can never take care of.

And if a gay home that is otherwise stable is the only place to put that kid, well, I'm sorry, but putting him on the street is NOT the more loving option.

And if we all took Catholic morality, we'd have more problems like this (Since birth control is totally condemned) not less.