Posted on 07/28/2015 3:06:16 PM PDT by NYer
That being said, if I was a Catholic parishioner, I would want the priest to bar them from communion until they repented of their sin.
The real question is would you actively discourage them from receiving communion at service, if you believe they have not repented (though how you would know that is problematic)...?
In other words, is it proper for one group of generalized sinners (all of us) to actively work against another group of particularized sinners...? Or is that a bridge too far...?
To me, part of the problem is that Christians of all stripes have failed at church discipline to varying degrees, and as a result, we end up with situations like this.
The tricky part is that a lot of people use the word "gay" to mean just "same-sex attracted" rather than "active sodomite." In addition to that, some people so identify with their feelings, that they embrace "gay" as their identity.
It's always a bad idea to find your "identity" in your appetites.
This slipperiness in the use of the word "gay" to mean , inexactly, what a person does, how he feels, and who he "is", makes it more difficult to explain that we do not want to devalue, marginalize and reject persons per se, but we do reject gay conduct and even the gay "relationships" and "culture" predicated upon that conduct.
”Hate the sin, love the sinner” and “Go and sin no more” are compatible statements.
Were you under the impression I thought otherwise?
For some reason, my comment after your quote did not post.
Plenty of non-Catholic churches down the road will be happy to perform a ceremony for them.This.
Instead of getting into a complicated philosophical argument, conservatives should champion a free market approach. The Episcopal Church, for example, has always accepted married clergy and they've been advocating for gay marriage for years.
Let the homosexuals migrate to the gay-friendly congregations and leave the more orthodox Christians to worship as they see fit.
It will be interesting to see which churches endure over the passage of time.
That is not "notable exception," it's an oxymoron.
What is "giving [someone] the boot" mean, precisely?
People who are involved in illicit sexual relationships are in an objective state of mortal sin, and are not to approach Holy Communion. Any catechism and any competent confessor (priest) will tell you that.
Got it. We’re in agreement.
The ones that I am aware of are pretty devout. One is active in adult education, the other always seems to be working on something in the parish.
Not a cross I would wish on one.
I never said every last one of them is sued. Are you implying that they were all framed? The evidence and history speaks otherwise:
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-P.html
I never said every last one of them was sued. Are you implying that they were all framed? The evidence and history speaks otherwise:
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-P.html
Given Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5:11, and 1 Corinthians 15:33, don’t associate with them. Pray for them, but don’t associate with them.
Perhaps, but Pope Francis needs to brush up on where your church stands instead of misleading the homosexual community to think and believe they will eventually have a free pass. Which IMO this Pope will find a way to do just that.
And BTW it isn't just the catholic church where this thinking has infiltrated...as we see Protestant Churches are actually accepting and encouraging this behavior in many which have been taken over by this homosexual agenda.
After they remove all moral objections against them, they will move on to even more evil behavior. These people do not recognize limits.
Exactly. A person with homosexual tendencies who understands the practice to be abhorrent to God, and does their best to live accordingly, is no less acceptable to Him than any of the rest of us trying to follow Jesus’ footsteps as closely as we’re able despite whatever OUR imperfections are. And yes, it illuminates in great detail, how much we ALL need the ransom.
No, that approach is freedom-based. Completely unacceptable to Ebola and the other FICs (Fascists In Charge). Why allow people autonomy when you can dictate every detail of their life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.