Pope Francis meets secretly with Kim Davis on US trip

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

wonda zookeepars a manuals fas a zoo creatures ans visitin appees human?

anyway

" giraffee up fa civils ans a tigar up fa divorce ans hyena doins a music "
_oooh clap clap clap"

tinku

 

[otters]

In the US civil marriage and religious marriage are separate. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that as most states allow religious officials to solemnize and sign the paperwork for the civil marriage. This is done as a matter of convenience so that a couple having a church wedding gets it all wrapped up in one ceremony, but it causes a lot of people to not realize that the two are separate I think.

And yes, exactly these are major dilemmas, IMHO.
If the states wouldn't allow that peculiar nonsense, there were one big problem less.

 

[otters]

The church understands that civil marriage is the arena of Caesar...whereas, the sacrament of matrimony is church territory.

Exactly!

I also appreciate that in many jurisdictions an ordained minister, or priest executes both ceremonies.

Well, in these (European) jurisdictions, the participants are usually better informed than the average bridal couple in the USA, one can suppose

 

[kallipolis]

One other item that I have neglected to mention when discussing marriage as a civil contract, is the important issue of inheritance rights when one spouse, or another dies...and of course the inheritance rights of the children....for often the matter of inheritance creates turmoil within a family when a legally drawn up last will, and testament has not been given due attention by a parent, or parents who hold legal title to property and/or land.

 

[T-Rexx]

One doesn't need to marry another person to be able to love them...

...I love my partner whilst, feeling no need, or desire to marry him...

Indeed.

But the Catholic Church teaches that you are not permitted to love your partner. Absurd as it would seem, the church teaches that you will be condemned to hell because you have loved another.

Of course this is an incredibly stupid idea, and one which all people everywhere should ignore. But the discussion here is the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. And that is the church's position.

We can agree that the church sacrament of matrimony needs to be inclusive...permitting same sex couples to participate in this sacrament.

I agree that it would be most enlightening for the Catholic Church to embrace gay marriage. And, some day, I expect that will happen.

But the church, for the time being, sticks adamantly to an Iron (and Bronze) Age interpretation of sexuality. It refuses to accept the last three millenia of progress in understanding of the human condition.

That is their choice.

 

[bankside]

The church understands that civil marriage is the arena of Caesar...whereas, the sacrament of matrimony is church territory.

I also appreciate that in many jurisdictions an ordained minister, or priest executes both ceremonies.

The church might be said to understand that if its behaviour upheld those words of yours. Its behaviour does no such thing. The church injects itself into every political debate in every democracy on the subject of marriage equality, and it behaves in every respect as though civil marriage were just the state playing at something that does not belong to Caesar.

 

[otters]

But the Catholic Church teaches that you are not permitted to love your partner.

Only, if you suppose that "love" is always necessarily "carnal desire". But, IMHO, that's an immature definition of "love".

 

[otters]

The church might be said to understand that if its behaviour upheld those words of yours. Its behaviour does no such thing. The church injects itself into every political debate in every democracy on the subject of marriage equality, and it behaves in every respect as though civil marriage were just the state playing at something that does not belong to Caesar.

Hence my proposition "séparation cordiale": the worldly authorities and the religious bodies should just ignore eachother regarding the marriage-related questions.

 

[T-Rexx]

Only, if you suppose that "love" is always necessarily "carnal desire". But, IMHO, that's an immature definition of "love".

No. The church teaches that even fantasizing about gay love is sinful.

You will be condemned to hell if you even think about loving the wrong person.

Obviously, this is stupid beyond belief. But that is what they teach.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

bodies lot a labulls
_any livin 1s?_
neva nose

 

[otters]

No. The church teaches that even fantasizing about gay love is sinful.

You will be condemned to hell if you even think about loving the wrong person.

Obviously, this is stupid beyond belief. But that is what they teach.

Pleaaaase — your "fantasy" example hasn't to do with love, but with carnal desire, or let's say: fornication.

But nevertheless would you care to give some details? Can., §§ etc.? And please care to compare with all the Roman Catholic texts regarding heterosexual fornication?

 

[kallipolis]

Indeed.

But the Catholic Church teaches that you are not permitted to love your partner. Absurd as it would seem, the church teaches that you will be condemned to hell because you have loved another.

I have never witnessed that teaching in Catholic doctrine....for the second great commandment invites each human being to love one another...i.e. love your neighbour, as one would love oneself...

This extract from the Catholic Catechism assists one understand that while all here accept that change in the church's teaching is necessary, to fulfil the Christ's message of love....we must also be patient with human nature, that fears differences in sexuality, skin pigmentation, language differences, and cultural differences...a tragedy for the human race.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[kallipolis]

No. The church teaches that even fantasizing about gay love is sinful.

You will be condemned to hell if you even think about loving the wrong person.

Obviously, this is stupid beyond belief. But that is what they teach.

You're fantasising....again.. for no such teaching exists...

 

[kallipolis]

The church might be said to understand that if its behaviour upheld those words of yours. Its behaviour does no such thing. The church injects itself into every political debate in every democracy on the subject of marriage equality, and it behaves in every respect as though civil marriage were just the state playing at something that does not belong to Caesar.

That's your perception...not reality...don't confuse the two...while accepting that high ranking church officials receive more press coverage than their statements should attract....unfortunately, the media prefers to publish the words of those who are likely to attract attention....whereas, coverage of the meek, and humble person is ignored...but you already know this

 

[bankside]

Hence my proposition "séparation cordiale": the worldly authorities and the religious bodies should just ignore eachother regarding the marriage-related questions.

I cannot recall the last time a democratically elected government made demands of the catholic church to change its rites, but the reverse is commonplace. We do not need séparation cordiale, because the state is already obliging. Since the church is not, we need more of a palissade de contrôle.

 

[otters]

We do not need séparation cordiale, because the state is already obliging. Since the church is not, we need more of a palissade de contrôle.

Not bad, your idea, not bad at all, since it would make the Roman Catholic Church (even) more attractive in the Western world, I dare to prognosticate

 

[kallipolis]

One of the most important influences, governing a need to change church teaching on gay loving relationships, is the call to love by the divine mystery.

Academic beliefs speak nothing more than words.

It is through our actions that we manifest our heartfelt commitment transforming our beliefs into deeds that speak for themselves.

Labels never reveal the inner content.

3

6 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."~Matthew 22:36-40

Love of God is academic unless we also love our neighbour. Love of our neighbour remains academic until we reach out, and assist them when their needs become apparent to us, and this inevitably includes supporting all same sex, loving couples to live a life together, filled with love of one another.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

democartic erection governmintin foolkees?
_wot aboot a world ova hose up butt wash a eons a dickwad drip?_
" multi head hosesy ans no takes wong "
! hey group hoseeys !
yea at giv lot um a note fa teys diarys _ ooh a life ofs supa advnatures befor corpse
_ha_

anyway

carrys on

tinku

 

[bankside]

That's your perception...not reality...don't confuse the two...while accepting that high ranking church officials receive more press coverage than their statements should attract....unfortunately, the media prefers to publish the words of those who are likely to attract attention....whereas, coverage of the meek, and humble person is ignored...but you already know this

Ahh. The customary retreat: "It's all in your head."

Some might think such a response cowardly or an affront to intellect. Others would speculate it is just a defence mechanism invoked when there is no substantive answer to a point that upsets the illusions on which one has become dependent, and they'd counsel compassion.

 

[kallipolis]

Ahh. The customary retreat: "It's all in your head."

Some might think such a response cowardly or an affront to intellect. Others would speculate it is just a defence mechanism invoked when there is no substantive answer to a point that upsets the illusions on which one has become dependent, and they'd counsel compassion.

Your perception remains closed to any thought that your ongoing agenda driven campaigns on this site, against religious beliefs are anything more than politics that serve your particular atheistic beliefs....but you already know this

I must now go to work...adieu...