| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Stone Wall Awards; ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 2. November 2012, 09:35 (903 Views) | |
| Penfold | Tuesday, 6. November 2012, 23:50 Post #46 |
![]()
|
As a point of clarity the sacrament of marriage is administered and effected by the couple, the priest is there as a witness on behalf of the church and to give them the Nuptial Blessing. The change of the definition of what marriage is, whether it is sacramental or not, is what is being debated. Should we allow marriage to be between people of the same gender or continue to define it as a union between a man and a woman? What are the possible consequences of a change of definition? Many of the answers that some of you will offer to this question will be based upon emotive arguments rather than the factual clear and concise irrefutable evidence based upon sound theological debates. This is part of the problem, the principles by which we live are so often based upon acceptance of a Christian Gospel and the belief in an ethereal deity who gave us 10 laws by which we choose to live our lives, which God the Son reduced to 2. love god and love our neighbour. The sadness is that I can accept that a man can love another man and a woman another woman and that these bonds of love can result in or from a physical attraction, chicken and the egg time, can we deny them the union that we call marriage. The problem is that marriage is more than just a union between two people, it is a bond that at the heart of which are the 3 fs. Fidelity, Forever and Fruitful, and this is the rub, how can a union between two people of the same gender bear fruit. How can such a union be procreative. Remember also that even between a man and a wife if the couple are incapable of having children then their marriage is considered invalid by the church. Marriage is not just about the union between two people it is about sharing God's creative power, to procreate. A union between people of the same gender may well fulfil 2 of the 3 but there is no way a man can naturally become pregnant. A same sex couple may well provide a loving home to a child or a disadvantaged and vulnerable teenager, indeed some will make better parents. But to call their union Marriage is denial of the natural and divine laws |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 7. November 2012, 00:08 Post #47 |
![]()
Administrator
|
My mistake. Priests witness marriages. The bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 7. November 2012, 23:07 Post #48 |
|
Thank you for that Rose. "Many of the answers that some of you will offer to this question will be based upon emotive arguments rather than the factual clear and concise irrefutable evidence based upon sound theological debates." As regards this passage I agree with Penfold - would rather though replace the word debate with doctrine. All or any of the rest is just froth in my opinion adding to confusion. But that's me. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Thursday, 8. November 2012, 12:39 Post #49 |
|
That fits with something I read about many cultures considering that a couple is not married until they have their first child. However, I am taken somewhat aback by this sentence. Is this really the case? A catholic man or woman who, lets say, is sterile as a result of radiotherapy in their teens can never be married in the catholic church? Or, lets say, if a catholic finds out that their spouse is infertile and was at the time of the marriage - they can walk away from the marriage and marry someone else? Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 8. November 2012, 14:36 Post #50 |
![]()
|
Gerry the actual text from Canon Law reads,
the ccc says
The problem is if one knows that one is incapable of having children how can one enter marriage open to the possibility of having them? However I am away for a couple of days so will come back to this later, it is as you suggest Gerry something were there is room for considered interpretation. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Thursday, 8. November 2012, 14:46 Post #51 |
|
Thanks Penfold,
That is good. Still a bit problematic for other things. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 8. November 2012, 14:51 Post #52 |
![]()
Administrator
|
How should a priest react when a widow and widower both aged over 60 approach him, to arrange their wedding? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Thursday, 8. November 2012, 15:59 Post #53 |
|
Remind himself of Sarah? Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Friday, 9. November 2012, 20:46 Post #54 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Not in my experience. And probably not in any other Personal Licence Holders's experience. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Friday, 9. November 2012, 20:49 Post #55 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Whether you accept that homosexuality is anything other than a sin is neither here nor there. It is not a sin, it's the act that is sinful. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Friday, 9. November 2012, 23:12 Post #56 |
|
"it's the act that is sinful." |I agree; this distinction is very important, and charity demands so methinks. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 9. November 2012, 23:28 Post #57 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Penfold has already apologised for what he wrote. I have emboldened the quoted apology.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Josephine | Friday, 9. November 2012, 23:54 Post #58 |
![]()
|
Re post #54 Sorry, a bar or off licence will NOT welcome an alcoholic. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated. If they did that, they would lose their licence and be subject to a hefty fine. |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 10. November 2012, 00:19 Post #59 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Exactly. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Saturday, 10. November 2012, 00:23 Post #60 |
|
If members wish to discuss alcoholism and/or the licensed trade, could they please do so in another thread.
|
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |











8:37 PM Jul 11