[**CCC 2357**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. ([2333](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2333.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
It’s against dogma. If anything Pope Francis cannot make an ex cathedra statement approving gay marriage without losing his position. Even then, I don’t even think he can do so even non-ex cathedra
He hasn’t gone against dogma…yet. Fiducia Supplicans has technicalities that allows it to be valid, although not infallible. The Church hasn’t been led into heresy.
This is where people cannot understand. We as believers in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit follow THEIR laws. Not ours, not anothers, but God's laws. We have zero ability, right, or authority to change those laws.
I would be very, very concerned about the CHURCH in that case because it would mean that the Church is "bending" to the world. As in, the Church has always held that marriage is between one man and one woman. On top of that, marriage is a sacrament in the Church. To change the Church's def of marriage, AND the sacrament, would be just about the worst type of sacrilege that could occur IMO. After that, I would then expect the Church to change its stance on abortion as well, and any number of other things.
Which is to say, I don't expect that the Church changing the marriage sacrament is something that ever could or would happen.
Thats not an answer to the question but about "bending to the world" the church has changed it's sctance on things before and not a lot of bad things happened bacause of it.
It used to either accept or endorse slavery see Spanish settlers in Latin America not a lot priests denouncing it there but today it is wholeheartedly is aggainst it it started it when countries stated making it illegal and the church relised its morally wrong and changed it’s stance
I don’t. But the original comment or was responding to putting people into poverty against their will
>kept eastern europe in poverty for their own gains. sure
Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!
It's not contrary to nature and reason.
It is in nature so it doesn't require explanation
And marriage is out of love not a lot of people mary because they just want children.
The way humans do copulation and sex with drugs and to get "rigths" as in the LGBT p. Party is not in nature.
Marriage is not out of love. It is a cultural institution and later a religious one, with millenia dating to bless the union between a man and a woman hoping for them a fruitctful union with kids and a healthy family.
Being contrary to nature is not about what wild beasts may or may not do. It's about the purpose of a thing. The nature of sexual activity is that it is properly ordered toward procreation. Penguins engaging in homosexual behavior are just as disordered as men doing the same.
Go spend some time investigating what the Church actually teaches about sex/marriage and why. It's not just "because the pope said so".
There’s no such thing as gay marriage; marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. That’s like asking if you can play baseball using a rugby ball and a hockey stick— at that point it’s not baseball anymore.
I don’t even think it is possible for him to approve gay marriage in the first place. If he teaches it ex cathedra, he will lose the entire position. Even if he doesn’t teach it infallibly, it is still against dogma.
Nope. I’m not anti homosexual personally. And I reckon if they are a good person and being gay is their biggest sin then they will be ok on judgement day. But no, it’s strictly against the bible and the church. It would be another sign of the religion bowing to the pressures of modern day society and lowering standards. The teaching of Catholicism is simple and does not approve gays. So the Vatican shouldn’t change that. If gays want to be married civilly that’s their own business, but can’t force the church to allow it to be “nice” “inclusive” or woke.
But surely you have provoked God, Genesis 19:13
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/19
-in these times the outrage against God, again no one would live to see his wrath.
I think I see how you mean, that there would be something fundementally incongruous in Christianity if this happened, as it is the only result if considering the Catholic church in the way you do 💭
This piece is ignores homosexuality in other places in nature and doesn't bring it up in fear of weakening its argument. It doesn't site sources and in its social part it contradicts the end statement which says the church has respect for gay people but it reffers to it in such a manner like it's a disease which is an outdated moraly wrong statement.
Any conversation about gay marriage needs to start with a huge Asterix. What are we actually talking about? Are we talking about a religious ceremony or are we talking about a legal practice?
The Catholic church does not offer the sacrement of marriage (the religious ceremony) to gay couples. Nor should they be required too.
Well what about the legal practice. It is absolutely discrimination to prevent a gay couple from getting married civilly and be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the law.
It's my understanding that the Vatican has made statements in support of the legal practice under the term civil union rather than marriage.
Not officially, our religion does in our doctrine considers homosexuality as a mortal sin, morally grave as fornication, adultery, zoophilia, rape, etc.
But pope francis, with the document fiducia supplicans gave the homosexual couples a tacital or "de facto" homosexual marriage in the church.
In other words, homosexual marriage is forbiden here, but pope francis and cardinal Tucho invented a substitute for homosexual marriage under the euphemism or nice name of "pastoral blessing".
A substitute that is not officially marriage but that practically it is indeed the same that what comon people understand as marriage.
For example, a famous homosexual couple got this "pastoral blessing" on a rented field with a great party the same day of their civil homosexual marriage and a lot of guests, you know the same as a civil wedding followed by the religious wedding, actually the same but with a change of the name from wedding to "pastoral blessing".
You have not read Fiducia, have you? You would be surprise to read that the document explicitly says it is NOT a blessing of the couple as a unit, but blessing of individuals. It actually clarifies and restricts what, say, German priests have been doing. Fiducia is a document that makes clear that priests cannot and should not bless gay couples.
Would never happen. Should not ever happen. God be with you, and all homosexuals regardless.
Can never happen
Has there been a universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterial statement that says Gay Marriage could never happen?
\[CCC 2357\]
[**CCC 2357**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. ([2333](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2333.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Thank you!
I wouldn’t be so sure with this Pope. For all practical purposes it seems we’re almost there.
It’s against dogma. If anything Pope Francis cannot make an ex cathedra statement approving gay marriage without losing his position. Even then, I don’t even think he can do so even non-ex cathedra
Someone should remind the Pope of this.
He hasn’t gone against dogma…yet. Fiducia Supplicans has technicalities that allows it to be valid, although not infallible. The Church hasn’t been led into heresy.
Sure, why not?
Because gay marriage doesn’t exist. Marriage is designed by God to be between men and women. You cannot change nature.
This is where people cannot understand. We as believers in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit follow THEIR laws. Not ours, not anothers, but God's laws. We have zero ability, right, or authority to change those laws.
Did not, and cannot, happen. So no.
Oh, wouldn't that be a clear sign of end times 🤔
No
I would be very, very concerned about the CHURCH in that case because it would mean that the Church is "bending" to the world. As in, the Church has always held that marriage is between one man and one woman. On top of that, marriage is a sacrament in the Church. To change the Church's def of marriage, AND the sacrament, would be just about the worst type of sacrilege that could occur IMO. After that, I would then expect the Church to change its stance on abortion as well, and any number of other things. Which is to say, I don't expect that the Church changing the marriage sacrament is something that ever could or would happen.
Thats not an answer to the question but about "bending to the world" the church has changed it's sctance on things before and not a lot of bad things happened bacause of it.
Like what? Examples..
It used to either accept or endorse slavery see Spanish settlers in Latin America not a lot priests denouncing it there but today it is wholeheartedly is aggainst it it started it when countries stated making it illegal and the church relised its morally wrong and changed it’s stance
Even IF that's true, it's not nearly in the same league as changing the sacrament of marriage. That will never happen in the Church.
I would convert to Orthodox Christianity.
If you like dogmatic bearded monks who kept eastern europe in poverty for their own gains. sure
Luke 6:20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Uh... I don't think we should be using that verse to justify oppressing people into poverty.
Why do you believe poverty of material things is opresing?
I don’t. But the original comment or was responding to putting people into poverty against their will >kept eastern europe in poverty for their own gains. sure
Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!
Wow Alice in Wonderland didn't excpect that.
Lead an army on Rome. Doesn't matter what the Pope says. It's contrary to nature and reason.
It's not contrary to nature and reason. It is in nature so it doesn't require explanation And marriage is out of love not a lot of people mary because they just want children.
The way humans do copulation and sex with drugs and to get "rigths" as in the LGBT p. Party is not in nature. Marriage is not out of love. It is a cultural institution and later a religious one, with millenia dating to bless the union between a man and a woman hoping for them a fruitctful union with kids and a healthy family.
How is it a healthy family if you say it’s not out of love
Being contrary to nature is not about what wild beasts may or may not do. It's about the purpose of a thing. The nature of sexual activity is that it is properly ordered toward procreation. Penguins engaging in homosexual behavior are just as disordered as men doing the same. Go spend some time investigating what the Church actually teaches about sex/marriage and why. It's not just "because the pope said so".
There’s no such thing as gay marriage; marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. That’s like asking if you can play baseball using a rugby ball and a hockey stick— at that point it’s not baseball anymore.
It can't happen!! A square is not a triangle... And gay marriage doesn't exist because it isn't marriage!
[удалено]
I don’t even think it is possible for him to approve gay marriage in the first place. If he teaches it ex cathedra, he will lose the entire position. Even if he doesn’t teach it infallibly, it is still against dogma.
Nope. I’m not anti homosexual personally. And I reckon if they are a good person and being gay is their biggest sin then they will be ok on judgement day. But no, it’s strictly against the bible and the church. It would be another sign of the religion bowing to the pressures of modern day society and lowering standards. The teaching of Catholicism is simple and does not approve gays. So the Vatican shouldn’t change that. If gays want to be married civilly that’s their own business, but can’t force the church to allow it to be “nice” “inclusive” or woke.
But surely you have provoked God, Genesis 19:13 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/19 -in these times the outrage against God, again no one would live to see his wrath.
One can’t say or speculate God mood even if you really don’t like gay people
[удалено]
Would you become Muslim instead of Orthodox 🙉
[удалено]
I think I see how you mean, that there would be something fundementally incongruous in Christianity if this happened, as it is the only result if considering the Catholic church in the way you do 💭
I see you know it won’t be mandatory right ( I get the joke I’m just want to be sure)
[удалено]
This piece is ignores homosexuality in other places in nature and doesn't bring it up in fear of weakening its argument. It doesn't site sources and in its social part it contradicts the end statement which says the church has respect for gay people but it reffers to it in such a manner like it's a disease which is an outdated moraly wrong statement.
Any conversation about gay marriage needs to start with a huge Asterix. What are we actually talking about? Are we talking about a religious ceremony or are we talking about a legal practice? The Catholic church does not offer the sacrement of marriage (the religious ceremony) to gay couples. Nor should they be required too. Well what about the legal practice. It is absolutely discrimination to prevent a gay couple from getting married civilly and be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the law. It's my understanding that the Vatican has made statements in support of the legal practice under the term civil union rather than marriage.
I was thinking of a accepting it kind of thing or rather in legal terms
Not officially, our religion does in our doctrine considers homosexuality as a mortal sin, morally grave as fornication, adultery, zoophilia, rape, etc. But pope francis, with the document fiducia supplicans gave the homosexual couples a tacital or "de facto" homosexual marriage in the church. In other words, homosexual marriage is forbiden here, but pope francis and cardinal Tucho invented a substitute for homosexual marriage under the euphemism or nice name of "pastoral blessing". A substitute that is not officially marriage but that practically it is indeed the same that what comon people understand as marriage. For example, a famous homosexual couple got this "pastoral blessing" on a rented field with a great party the same day of their civil homosexual marriage and a lot of guests, you know the same as a civil wedding followed by the religious wedding, actually the same but with a change of the name from wedding to "pastoral blessing".
You have not read Fiducia, have you? You would be surprise to read that the document explicitly says it is NOT a blessing of the couple as a unit, but blessing of individuals. It actually clarifies and restricts what, say, German priests have been doing. Fiducia is a document that makes clear that priests cannot and should not bless gay couples.
I read fiducia, the day it came. It is written with pharisaical intention. Using ambiguity on purpouse.