They also burned other Catholics, they were nor choosey!
Because as a Catholic you are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church that can trace its lineage back to Peter. A Roman Catholic will not just chuck the RCC when he is given an out via his conscience on the non-dogmatic teachings.
Very true - and until recently it has been gays who have had to put up with this kind of shame from the group who you now claim are at risk of experiencing this same shame because of their own views, which again no-one is forcing them to hold. Indeed, there are gays who STILL experience shame at the hands of that group (ex-gay therapy anyone?). So I say cry me a river to a group that chose to put gays through the psychological torture and second class citizen status they did (and continue to try and do) if they now feel bad that other people perceive them as the arseholes they are for doing so.
But that’s exactly my point. The one true Church as stewards of God view can’t be reconciled with a person taking a position on anything that the Church doesn’t agree with. If it’s the one true Church that never errs then how can anyone disagree with it on anything without suffering massive internal conflict?
I suppose I’m arguing with the entire notion of cafeteria Catholicism as there are people in this thread saying that’s exactly what they’ve done themselves. But as a counterpoint my mother joined the Church as a late teen and then left several years later because she didn’t agree with their view on birth control. It was put to her she accepted it all or she was out, so she chose to go. I can understand taking that approach more than my previously mentioned cognitive/moral dissonance.
Because according to Catholic teaching, it can never err ONLY on those teachings that are declared as dogma. The Church CAN definitely err on things that have not been declared as dogma. So, as Catholic, if you in your conscience disagrees with a teaching that has not been declared a dogma, you are free to do so.
yeah, that would be the retort all right.
Not to mention all the priests in the uniate churches (Maronites, Byzantine Catholics, etc.), who are permitted to marry.
There are plenty of married Catholic priests. Just not so many Roman Catholic priests. Although there are some.
The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it’s why we have separation. I don’t see the issue here?
It was traced back to Peter when Constantine who was Roman naturally used that the starting point(as I see it) Christianity was very divided before that, and even Paul disagreed with Peter.Many of the other writings were detroyed and many people who disagreed hid their writnings(such as the Gnostics).There is very little writings of Peter in the NT. Even those writings have some doubt as to who wrote them.
I believe the one’s who are married were converted from another branch of Christianity, and allowed to be ordained.
Side question. When the church grants an annulment, doesn’t the state still have to grant a divorce? I mean, just because the church says the marriage is annulled doesn’t mean that the couple doesn’t have to go to court, get the government paperwork, divide assets, work out custody, etc. They have to do whatever the state’s divorce laws require, right?
Correct. Anullment is purely a religious matter, and has no effect on the state recognition of a marriage or a divorce.
Regards,
Shodan
Correct. After that you have to go get either a civil divorce or(if the state you reside in allows) a civil annulment.
Or you can get the civil divorce/annulment first & then go through channels to get a church annulment–so you can remarry within the Church.
Sounds a little risky to me-a church annulment isn’t automatically granted on demand.
Even more significant, when society rejects a viewpoint that strongly it gets difficult to transmit it to the next generation, unless you’re willing to retreat into an isolated enclave community. That’s what people on the losing side of these issues really fear, I think.
This is the heart of the matter in this debate. Civil Union is marriage by the state’s definition but not as per church teachings and as such they shoud just shut up and render unto Caeser!
If we all stopped calling it marriage and just said under law couples who cohabitate should have the same rights regardless of sex, then we would have an easier case.
Condoms.
I’m sure homosexuals living in states passing Constitutional referendums limiting their rights as citizens can sleep easier tonight knowing you don’t see a problem because of separation of Church and State.
Just an FYI I am an an Aussie.
Using religious ideology to shape legislation is a matter of fact within the human existence. This is why in the USA and most enlightened countries we have a separation of state and church, it just seems at times that the fundies have a bigger sway than they should!
But my original point stands, I can believe that SSM is a good thing and you can believe it is a bad thing. This is quite OK.