By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Are Catholics who support same-sex marriage and take Communion like people who commit perjury?
That was the stance taken by Detroit's archbishop on Sunday, after an academic with ties to the church wrote that Catholics in favor of gay marriage should skip Communion.
In Sunday's Detroit Free Press, the archbishop said Catholics who both support same-sex marriage and take Communion would "logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury."
On Monday, though, the Archdiocese of Detroit tried to reframe Archbishop Allen Vigneron's comments.
“For a Catholic to receive Holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: 'I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches,’ ” Vigneron told the paper. “In effect, they would contradict themselves.”
On Monday, the archdiocese looked to step back and add context to the statement.
“The archbishop's focal point here is not ‘gay marriage’; it is a Catholic’s reception of Holy Communion,” Joe Kohn, the archdiocese spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to CNN. “If a Catholic publicly opposes the church on a serious matter of the church’s teaching, any serious matter - for example, whether it be a rejection of the divinity of Christ, racist beliefs, support for abortion or support for redefining marriage - that would contradict the public affirmation they would make of the church's beliefs by receiving Communion.”
Kohn continued: “As the archbishop states, the pastors of the church are ready to assist Catholics to help them understand and avoid this conflict.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Same-sex marriage has been a hot-button issue in recent years but has received elevated attention in the past few months because of high-profile Supreme Court hearings.
The original blog post was written by Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. In it, Peters writes that Catholics who promote same-sex marriage “should not approach for Holy Communion” and “risk having Holy Communion withheld from them ... being rebuked and/or being sanctioned.”
In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Peters to be a judicial adviser to the Vatican. He blogs about canon law on his blog “In Light of the Law” and has received a great deal of attention for writing that certain Catholic politicians – such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo – should not be allowed to take Communion because of their beliefs.
Receiving Communion is an important aspect of Catholicism and it is traditionally marked by worshippers receiving the Holy Eucharist during church service. Catholics believe by receiving Communion, they are receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
On his blog, Peters cites canon 915, a Catholic law that outlines who is not eligible to be “admitted to Holy Communion,” as his reasoning. This particular canon cites people who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” as ineligible to receive Communion.
A majority of Catholics, according to polling, disagree with this view of Communion.
A 2011 survey by the National Catholic Reporter found that 86% of Catholics said they believe a Catholic “can disagree with aspects of church teachings and still remain loyal to the church.”
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
The same survey found that 35% of Catholics said the church's opinion on same-sex marriage was very important, a number that reporter William D’Antonio says is lower than in previous years.
“What more and more Catholics are saying,” D'Antonio wrote in 2011, “is that my lived experiences are different than what the church is saying.”
This is not a new academic argument-and it really IS almost completely academic. You're not supposed to want to seek unity with the church, such as is represented by communion at ANY church, if you disagree with it on major points. Are you going to be totally refused communion, no... just refused by *some* priests.
The discussion about gay marriage and the catholics need to still reel when it is brought out to talk about is just one of many reasons people are leaving the faith. First you go to church and while your there, you will hear a reading or three and the prayers for those who have passed or are suffering, last your to go out and spread the word of god. This isn't god's word, its the word of men put into print, no different than the old testament. These same people get into their cars and cut each other off just leaving the church parking lot. As catholics the word of god is not discussed with the congregation. How people feel about what is taking place in the world and what it means to people of faith. There is no room for dissent, no discussion of what would the good book would say if written for today's world. As a person who was raised catholic I thought it more important that my children should decide for themselves where they might fit in the religious or non-religious world. If the language that is used in the bible can't even be discussed at church then I believe that will be their own downfall. Mankind may not have changed very much physically during the last 2000 years, but our view of the world we live in has changed over time, our thoughts evolve, as we gain a better understanding of the world we live in, to say that today is not relevant to the history of the church and its teaching is moving forward in time with blinders on. We already have another book of faith that does this same thing and because the followers of that religion refuse to bend their out killing each other in the name of religion, as has been done by the catholics throughout its history. Most people who follow their religion do it because of the ideals set out by their leaders of faith, treat people as you would want to be treated, don't covet your neighbors wife, don't steal, but people being human beings make mistakes and do wrong to others, none of us is perfect and we already know this. If religion can't or won't evolve with the reality of the world we live in, then eventually they to will fail. I may not believe or follow my religion, but if it helps others through trying times in their lives, I definitely wouldn't begrudge them their faith. As for those who use their religion to take life and or ostracize others for their way of life, then they have missed their own teachings, and are following not original catalyst of their faith. What ever being is or isn't out there in the universe, wouldn't take kindly to those who use their faith to kill, or mistreat their fellow men and women.
i am the real deal do onto others as you would have them do unto you you guys do not want to be discriminated against so do not discriminate against my religion.
Call it want you want but i am sticking to my guns, you guys are really spewing filth from the mouth. be nice i serve a good god who happens to love everyone.
Another genius befuddled by the reply function....
must be another lowercase tony then – there is another frequent poster who would not write such things
Reading some of your post here is scary, i use to think that gay marriage was ok now i don't because next legislation they are going for at the supreme court is the banning of bibles while throwing the pastors in jail so i wish the gay marriage legislation being decided at the supreme court go against gay marriage.
That is non-sense tony
doesn't sound like the usual tony – probably a troll
banning bibles while throwing pastors in jail? paranoid much?
Matthew 5:28 says:
"..but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Lust is thought Bill...and I was taught by Catholic priests and nuns that this can be extrapolated to other thoughts as well...were they and Jesus wrong?
(waiting for confusing rationalization)
I want to know about this also. Is it "lust" to just see(male perspective) an attractive woman, and appreciate the way God has put her together, and note a beautiful body? Seems to me this is a biological response. I don't go through an analytical process before finding a woman attractive. Or, for it to be "lust" do I have to undertake a real thought process, and imagine bending her over my pool table?
From my experience it depends on the opinion of the Catholic authority you ask. But then they will tell you that morality is objective and to believe otherwise is "moral relativism".....and of course they have the objective morality market coronered.
Makes sense right?
Again Cheesy, when confounded by a so called "Catholic authority" refer to the catechism.
So I can form my own opinion on how to interpret the catechism? The same catechism that was itself an interpretation....how nice.
Catholics use mind control on Republicans:
The epitome of the Church’s teaching on immigration is found in No. 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”
Actions speak louder than words..
Stated..." A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication." April 9, 2013 1:33 PM.
So s3xually abuse a child and we will cover your ass as best we can but fvck up a sacrament and you are toast, thanks for the clarification, we already knew that.
Oh yes, and every catholic clearly does everything the cathecism states. Let's also not forget that according to Bill, child molestation in the church needs to reach a certain percentage of self-admitted cases before any criticism of the hierarchy covering it up and shuffling those priests around to be valid.
So as we can clearly see, Bill should be listened to, because what he says makes obvious sense.
And, as is usual, Bill Deacon has run like the coward he is.
Those dang Catholics are at it again:
From the catechism on workers rights;
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious obsequious papal apologist troll. Had to double up, missed one in last post, fallibility can be a curse.
More Catholic "brainwashing":
Either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."1
Is irrelevant. Billy is a papal apologist troll. Picking the fly sh1t out of the pepper, well done, kind of reminds me of Chad and fine tuning.
And where does the definition of what is "good" and "moral" come from that people need to "freely choose"? Why the Roman Catholic Church of course, why after all, have they not shown themselves to be a moral authority through their actions?
2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.
Or we could just let you decide cheesy
That is moral relativism! Oh the irony.
And I already do decide, as do most Catholics and people in general. What I didn't do is allow the Church to decide for me as you do....It is not something you should be proud of Bill.
Seems like blackmail and punishment to me.
It's called bribery and extortion.
Are you claiming you make your moral judgements in a vacuum with no outside influence? No law? No philosophy? No history? Just where does your morality come from? The acceptance of those who think like you do?
Stated....."A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication." April 9, 2013 1:33PM
So Billy thinks a crime against his RCC dogma is more heinous than s3xual abuse of a child. You have to wonder how sick this guy really is, hiding any secret files Billy?
My moral view comes from many sources, some from my Catholic upbringing, but what I have found is that the things that I accept as moral have nothing to do with ideas that were original to Catholocism or Christianity and were in fact adopted by them.
"Voluntary or forced suppression of one's seexuality does not manifest into a perversion of any type."
Aren't the gays pretending to be straight engaging in such a perversion?
If I understand your question you are saying if a gay person suppresses their hom0sxual urges and "models" straight that the result is ahom0sxuality, which is perverted?
Not sure I can answer that one sam. But, I can tell you that hom0sxcuality in and of itself is not consider a perversion or a sin by the Church. The in ordinate acting out of any number of sxual urges outside of the context of marriage is though. Catholics believe that sx is a proper intimacy only between married men and women.
The word "marriage" was invented around 1250 AD by the catholic church, so that it could claim dominion over pair bonding. Just more control : )
Then why is just expressing a thought for gay marriage cause for recrimination and punishment?
Especially is a secular setting?
That is just not true, the Catholic church teaches sinful thoughts as being the same as actions. And why would a "just" god give people urges that are sinful to begin with?
Akira, excellent question. The point being that expression of that thought is not coincident with the communion of the Church. There is no punishment or retribution but simply a recognition that it is not consistent to say "I don't believe what the Church says" and then receive the sacrament which confirms that one does believe what the Church teaches. People for their own dignity should be consistent and understand what they are doing and not just come for communion because they think they are supposed to. Eucharist has meaning.
Cheesy, the section on sin is pretty extensive but I find no mention of thoughts as sinful in the catechism. If you can post something I'd be glad to retract my statement.
1870 "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom 11:32).
1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity.
1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.
1874 To choose deliberately – that is, both knowing it and willing it – something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beattude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
1875 Venial sin consttutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.
1876 The repettion of sins – even venial ones – engenders vices, among which are the capital sins.
"Eucharist has meaning."
Than why doesn't the church teach that? They know people are consistently using birth control and priests are engaging in s.ex....and they turn a blind eye.
(waiting for confusing rationalization).
Ummm, did you miss the part about desire? Desire is a thought.
"Turn a blind eye"? That's exactly what this article is about. The author is saying that people need to have the fog lifted from their eyes and recognize what the Church stands for. Then inquire within themselves as to their acceptance of that and make the appropriate choice to receive communion or not. Most ministers will not turn anyone away who comes forward but some may begin to although my preference would be that individuals make their own evaluation regarding their worthiness to receive based on an informed conscience.
I'll acknowledge some grey area around thought. Chalk it up to the constraints of the board in discussing a deep topic. When you go to confession you can discuss your thoughts and see what penance you receive.
Personally, I've got a handful just with behavior.
Stated..."A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication." April 9, 2013 1:33PM
So what Billy is saying that canon law has precedence over a nations criminal law and/or civil laws. This would also explain the RCC stand on contraception and a woman's freedom to choose.
The point is are they taking the same stance on other "sins" that the followers of the Catholic Church flaunt like birth control? Of course they aren't. I have made this point several times today and you do what the Church does...ignore it.
Has anyone ever noticed how peaceful a group of small oriental people can be when they're all sleeping? It's the most magical thing in the world.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC, USA 20500
Dear President Obama:
The Bible & Torah should be banned!
Here are several really loving excerpts from the Torah; the first five books of the Old Testament in the bible - perhaps read to the congregation on Friday night at a synagogue or a Sunday morning church in the meadow.
1. Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2. Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
3. Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7.
Rabbinical / Priestly rules:
Leviticus 21:17-18 … “No one who is blind or lame or has a defect or any blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God.”
Leviticus 18:22 … “You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination ….”
Rabbis; the pope and churches fully aware that Leviticus 18:22 applies to rabbis and priests … refuse to remove this stigma maliciously persecuting gays. Kids are being bullied into suicide …!
While I agree with your sentimental letter to the messiah, I have to disagree on the part where you believe it is alright for the government to get itself involved with myths.
Banning books and legislating belief is never a good idea.
What Jesus said about gays and gay marriage, "
That is a fallacy, specifically an argument from silence.
If He said nothing, what makes you think He would have condemned it?
Jesus DID comment on marriage.
topher: jesus's comments on marriage are irrelevant to our secular lasw
lasw = laws
i suppose you will offer your usual claptrap about allowing gays to marry would be like endorsing their "sin". but, you do not seek to deny other "sinners" their civil rights. i have called you on it before, and you have made some bullspit answer. why do not not seek to deny other sinners their civil rights?
"i suppose you will offer your usual claptrap about allowing gays to marry would be like endorsing their "sin". but, you do not seek to deny other "sinners" their civil rights. i have called you on it before, and you have made some bullspit answer. why do not not seek to deny other sinners their civil rights?"
Right. It would be an endorsement of their sins/immorality. First, it's not a right at all, let alone a civil one. Thus the case in Supreme Court. Second, you'll have to be more specific on what else I should be against.
It would be an endorsement of their sins/immorality
Which is impossible, since the state of "being gay" is not a sin at all. The state of being gay, is being how God has created that individual. Are you critiquing God's creation? Who are you to criticize God for what he has made? I'm not sure God is too pleased with your criticisms.
"Right. It would be an endorsement of their sins/immorality."
No, it would be an acknowledgement that we all have the same rights under the law.
"First, it's not a right at all, let alone a civil one"
The Supreme Court said that marriage is a civil right in 1967.
"Second, you'll have to be more specific on what else I should be against"
You want to deny gays their rights because they are sinners. How about liars? How about larda$$es? How about adulterers? How about those who do not ascribe to your belief system? They are sinners, why are you not seeking to deny them their rights? Or is it that your bigotry is just focused on gays?
better yet, topher, maybe someone should deny you your rights because you are a sinner.
do you believe that denying people equal rights will cause them to not be gay?
topher: if you really want to impress god that you are one of his true folllowers, take the gays out to the edge of town and stone them to death. after all, allowing them to live is just endorsement of their sins. step up, boy, your petty vindictive pr1ck god needs petty vindictive pr1ck followers....this is where you come in.
remember, every minute you wait, there are gays out there doing yucky gay stuff. on top of it (no pun intended), they are probably moaning "oh, god, oh jeebus". this has to be put to a stop
topher wants to deny the rights of gays to marry because that would be endorsing their sin. he, however, will not deny the rights of any other group of sinners. nor will he volunteer his rights. i think topher has a big burr about gays inserted deep into his rectum. he is a coward, and a bigot. as such, he is a fine representative of evangelical christianity. topher.....go fvck yourself
One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one (over 4,000,000 members) in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.
One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".
One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.
One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.
Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Some believe that celibacy is appropriate for certain people, or for certain people or positions. As we read about each day, this unnatural practice continues to cause problems for the religious institutions that advise/employ it. Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but pretend not to understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease.
Conflicted right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create more extreme divisions as time goes by, constantly subjecting others in its crossfire.
Rainer Braendlein is always happy to prove my point about the ~40,000 denominations of insanity.
Two points clarity. It is not our differences which define us but our similarities. Secondly, there are no credible links between celibacy and pedophilia. Voluntary or forced suppression of one's seexuality does not manifest into a perversion of any type. Distorted seexuality is typically a cultural and environmental causation
one point, bill: it is about equal rights. religious doctrine does not enter into it at all
Differences define you.
sam, to be clear, I am not making an argument about U.S. civil law. I am discussing the doctrine of the Church. The government can pass a law calling day night if it chooses, and thinks it can get enough votes from people who want it that way. I'm discussing what I believe as a Catholic and why I think other Catholics should examine what they believe and decide to either become committed to the faith or not.
Stated..."A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication. April 9, 2013 1:33PM
Unless of course the crime was s3xual abuse against a child, right Billy? When the RCC allows children to be confirmed before they can think for themselves, is that what you mean?
bill: fair enough
The age of confirmation in most dioceses is 18.
"The age of confirmation in most dioceses is 18."
Unless you post some cooberating information I consider this an outright lie.
"The age of confirmation in most dioceses is 18
Absolute hogwash. I don't know a single catholic who was confirmed after the age of 14.
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. All of it Bill, I am no expert but I also looked at what is considered fair game for priests to delve into in the confessional. What I find disturbing is having children expose their s3xual experiences or preferences to a priest. This is one of the ways that abusers can target those that may be vulnerable to their advances. In Australia Prof. Taylor said the clergy is still grooming children for abuse at an alarming rate.
Ever been in a confessional? First they are autonomous. That means no one knows that it's you. Secondly, priests do not "delve". they listen. Then they pronounce absolution, penance and forgiveness, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication.
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. Man you really wallow in ignorance of what has been happening because it suits you to do so. You could go and watch the many docu-mentaries on the abuse or go to a victims website, start by watching Mea Maxima Culpa, you delusional hypocrite. The more you make stupid denials the more people can see through you, a priest doesn't know the voices of his flock and the reach around sam talks about. The confessionals I have seen had a sliding small door, probably wrong again.
Bill, and where does man have the authority to forgive alleged "sins?" I was leafing through the old "good book" and I can't find this "hail mary" thing anywhere.
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. I didn't pick up on your "that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex-communication." Now that is the most hilarious and hypocritical statement you have made to date. So all those criminal child s3x abusers that the RCC were shuffled around like a deck of cards SHOULD have been ex-communicated, but weren't, how exactly did that work, Billy?
Demon, not to draw to fine a point, which I presume will elude you, but the sin of scandal and objectification of another human being is not ex-communicable. The violation of the confessional is.
Dolph, google "whose sins you forgive are forgiven"
got to go for now all. Thanks for another great work out on the Catholic faith. If anyone can present a good argument for why atheism would be a better world view and substantiate it with facts and history, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'll be back in a few days after retreat to bear the onslaught of hatred.
civil liberties were refused by many using their bibles to say "god doesn't like this."
ie. free black slaves; desegregation, women rights, childrens rights, gay rights etc etc etc.
without the poison called religion being so dang anti-everything, mainly because the followers were so anti-everything, the world would have progressed at a far better pace than it has due having to struggle with the religion zombies standing in our way.
Bill is another Christian framing "disagreement" as "hatred". Get over yourself.
Atheism is a response to a claim...nothing more.
You're right Cheesy. Most of today's debate has been nearly civil, if uninformed. I'm reacting to people like anvil and demuth who say churches should be burned and priests sent to prison. I often wonder though why those people are not denounced by more reasonable opponents of religious expression.
Just remember the mindest that many of these religious people have. Not giving preferential treatment is often seen as "persecution".
Stated..."A criminal might subvert this sacrament but that would make him a criminal, not a priest and would result in immediate and automatic ex- communication." April 9, 2013 1:33 PM
What kind of belief system would treat a crime against dogma as automatic while protecting pedophile priests for decades as they continue their crimes? Truly sick Billy by any moral standard.
I would not agree with those sentiments and the one post I saw today that took the position of banning bibles and legislating beliefs I refuted. If there was a real threat in this country to enact such laws I would be fighting just as strongly against them, it would be a threat to everyone. Seperation of church and state protects both.
An archbishop complaining about double dealing...that's funny.
One could assume that the RCC would be really Christian because she rejects gay marriage. However, even Muhammad, the false prophet, had rejected gay marriage. The ancient people independent from their belief still remembered the historical fact that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because of their stubborn gayness. In the ancient world it was completely unimagineable that any greater religious community would accept/admit gay people or even same-s-ex couples.
The RCC has adopted some true teachings from the Early Church which was a true Christian Church accoring to Christ's insti-tution.
Yet, the problem of the RCC is her hypocrisy. At the one hand she condemns the gays, on the other hand her priests molest children; and responsible for that is the pope who is not ready to abolish celibacy. Celibacy is no Christian doctrine but was invnented by unholy popes around 1000 after Christ, in order to prevent that ecclesiastical princes could have sons who would inherit proberty of the Church.
Get lost, damend pope. You can kiss my ass.
Pope, who takes care of your children?
rainy: posting the same tripe all the time does make it true, it just makes it repet-i-t-ive tripe
@RB: "even Muhammad, the false prophet"
how very christian of you. in one sentence totally insult another's beliefs without a single thought of how you feel when the shoe is on the other foot.
main reason i don't like christians.......................not very christ like.
April 9, 2013 at 9:33 am
as you can see RB has been spouting the same bias crap all day.
"even Jesus, the false prophet."
jesus failed to meet the trials set before him before he died; thus he is a false prophet. prove me wrong RB.
RB, you say: "The ancient people independent from their belief still remembered the historical fact that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because of their stubborn gayness." Historical fact? The story doesn't even exist outside of the old testament and even this biblical version doesn't give "stubborn gayness" as the motive.
@RB: what the story of sodom TRULY said.
GENESIS"4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have s/e/x with them.”
sounds to me like these people wanted to ra/pe the "angels" not have concentual relations with them. you can read the whole book and it saids nothing of same gender marriage only speaks against the actions of forcing yourself upon another human.
how was lot so worthy of being saved by god that two angels were sent to him when he was an ince/stious pe/do/phile?
GENESIS"36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today."
always hilarious to see g.ays be part of a club that absolutely loathes them.
I'd like it to be known I did not vote for the pope. I had nothing to do with that whole mess.
Okay, I laughed...
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. Actually I took a few minutes on the weekend to skim through the table of contents of the RCC catechism. I could not believe the mind control that is contained in that piece of garbage. No wonder you have to get them while they are young to buy into that bullsh1t. Brainwashing 101 = the catholic catechism, pathetic.
Give an example please.
Bill, why not do some of your own research instead? Man, the laziness is astonishing. You don't read your own bible because you want some old guy to read it to you.
OK, here's a part I like:
1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:34
But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35
1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36
still waiting for examples of "mind control"
Bill above, forgot the reply button.
You must have posted it incorrectly. Perhaps someone is controlling your mind.
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. Not only am I fallible but I do not claim to know a being or myth that is infallible.
Well at least you gave up on the brainwashing claim and reverted to type. Send back your trophy from last week.
A touch of humor Bill, I did not think you were capable of congrats. Listen that silver chalice was really plated bras and fetched diddly on e-bay so I had to dip into my own pocket and make a donation to Kids Help Line. I know, I know, it is the thought that counts.
Fallible again, meant brass but bras are kind of fun if you can figure out how to unsnap the damn things.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.