It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholics & Gay Marriage: POPE Francis Optimistic, whereas Vatican Opposes

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
www.usatoday.com...

Pope Francis gives hope to gay Catholics

Although the Catholic Church has not officially changed its doctrine against homosexual acts and against gay marriage,
two years ago Francis' public statement surrounding the matter was “[bif someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"
And USA Today says that most who are optimistic to see that change one day do admit it is not realistic there will be an instant shift.

I suppose that is where conservatives get their 'Agenda' conspiracies from? the idea that tolerating homosexuals (and possible bisexuals) as equals to straights is just the foot in the door to actually having their unions sanctified by even the Catholic Church whose Scriptures, translated/transliterated clearly state marriage is only between a 'man' and a 'woman'.



^Majority of Catholics are already in FAVOR of Gay Marriage?




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Milah

Since the catholic "church" is not a set of bricks, nor the Vatican hierarchy surrounded by and adorned in insane riches and wealth, maybe the real church - the people - should all get a vote to see what the planet of catholics has to say about whether the Catechism should be reviewed to support gay marriage/rights or not.

I wonder if the results of that global vote would be contrary or supportive of what the TV and internet is saying?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I would think most of the Vatican are childless & wifeless males, and non-straight men and that.

Thus, I would think that if they were honest with themselves and their underlying orientation regardless of how conservatively repressed (or just closeted) by the faith they subscribe to and profess, they would for once in over 2000 years, stop condemning gay marriage and adopt a neutral 'who are we to judge' attitude to same sex unions seeking marital recognition.

Just like with Circumcision and Consumption of Pork, the Catholic Church (and other denominations) can chose to be either progressive, or face a shrinkin following.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Milah

Catholicism will not perform or approve gay marriage. It goes directly against scripture.

The best we can hope for is tolerance of the state ratified version of marriage from them.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Don't read into what he said. He didn't say being gay is ok. He's just saying what the bible teaches.. "Do not judge". That doesn't mean he condones it. It's still very much a sin according to catholic belief and what the bible also shows.

There is a big difference between not agreeing with what a person believes and judging them for what they believe.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
If you read Genesis chronologically as it was intended and with care you'll see that God created two sets of humans. The first set was created in the divine image, were blessed and told to fill the earth. They were given dominion over the animals, fish and birds. The second set was created from mud and a rib, were confined to the garden and then cursed. The second set was Adam and Eve. So who were the first set?

We've relied on prejudiced interpretations of scripture to the point we are blinkered into seeing only what the church wants us to see. It's time for the pope to admit the fraud and to give gays the spiritual elevation that is their legacy.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

God (an omnipotent creator) made homosexuals to fill the world?

Then as an afterthought created heteros and cursed them?

Perhaps he had to create the "breeders" as his first creation attempt died out in a single generation?
edit on 28-9-2015 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

From what I see, most people don't understand the distinction between tolerance and acceptance.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Milah
I would think most of the Vatican are ........... and non-straight men and that.


Based on....?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

"The majority of Catholics"....

This would really depend on what "Catholics" you were to ask. Just because someone professes themselves Catholic...does not mean that they ARE Catholic.

I've read that less than 10% of Catholics would be/could be, considered intentional disciples of Jesus Christ. This survey comes from interviews with Catholic priests., when asked about their parishes. It's rather sad actually. Roughly 7% of the faithful, contribute 80% to the life of The Church.

If you asked actual Catholics, the intentional disciples who follow EVERY word of Jesus Christ and His church, The Catholic Church, 0% would approve/condone this so-called same sex "marriage".

We don't make the rules up as we go along, or take votes on doctrine. If we did that? Well, we'd simply be Protestants.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: StallionDuck

From what I see, most people don't understand the distinction between tolerance and acceptance.


I wouldn't say most. There are a lot of people on board, at least from what the so called polls are stating. If you're looking at any specific religion base, then I'd say you are correct. Still, there are many different denominations out there. Even sects within each denomination isn't always going to go with the majority. Such things led many sects to stray from their root and ended up creating new denominations. Lutheran Catholics for example. So many different Baptists and so forth...

Myself personally, I'm more tolerant than accepting but I do accept others rights, so long as they don't demean or water down my own. I fully believe if a person or group doesn't accept the way the origin of whatever stands for, they're welcome to go off and make their own, just don't demand that the fold that the moved away from follow along. There is a problem with taking something that one believes in and making them change just because someone else wants them to change. It goes both ways. People shouldn't tell you that you can't be gay, but if you are, you shouldn't make the other accept it if they don't like it. The balance is... You go your way and I go mine. Don't demand to be in my flock if my flock stands against something you want to change about it. Sacrilege is a real thing.

I'm more live and let live. Just stay out of my own ways of folly. I don't like carrying a title. I prefer to be unique and not go along with the masses. I don't expect anyone to follow, but I'll be damned if someone demands me to change the way I feel about my own life and how I see it. I don't go to peoples business that they created with their sweat and tears, nor churches that they believe in and tell them how it has to be. If they don't accept me, I don't support them. It's that easy. No need to make a big stink about it and try to ruin peoples lives and all that they try to accomplish.

Like the pope said... Who am I to judge?

I am no one.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Sometimes I think that people have forgotten the word "compromise."

Quick example of something I've seen recently:

Someone I work with is very much against same-sex marriage. He also has a niece that is gay and is set to marry some time next year. Apparently she had asked that my associate be part of the wedding party (as best man or usher or something like that). He refused and apparently there was a whole family blow-out over the whole thing. From what I've been told, nobody is happy.

The (unsolicited) advice that I gave my fried was to propose a compromise.
I don't think it is fair that, knowing his views before-hand, that his niece essentially demanded he take part in the wedding.
At the same time, I don't think it is fair that he refuses to be supportive of his niece.
So, my suggestion was to propose attending the after-party to be part of this milestone in her life while not participating in the actual ceremony....?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

I feel bad for all those hurt in the process. I would think that if he was really opposed to it then they would have to understand as well. It goes both ways still.

I have a similar example with pretty much the same outcome. The difference is, the preferences involved.

My mother will not go to my little brother's wedding here next month because she doesn't get along with her siblings and if they're going to be there, she most certainly will not.

My brother can't deny his aunts from showing up because they're family and he has no beef with them.

Our mother believes that since it's his wedding, he should tell them they can't come so she can come.

The rest of us just say... "you're being childish... you should not skip out on your sons first big wedding".

However, we all know how melodramatic our mother gets. It's just her way. It's how she was raised. It was due to many years of mental and physical abuse in one way or another from her mother as she grew up. Man... the stories I could tell.

So, the bottom line is, we understand how she is. If she wants to miss the wedding due to some selfish dispute, then fine. In her mind, she's justified. In ours, it's silly. But... We accept it because it's just how she is. We move on and don't think twice about it. I just feel bad that it'll be one priceless memory she wont have for herself. I feel bad because she's going to miss something I know she wants to be a part of. It's just how our mother is. She didn't come to my wedding either. She's stubborn, set in her ways and what can you do?

Just let people have their beliefs and their own reasons. I think we would be just as wrong to take that away from them, by making them the way we want them or changing what they believe in to suit our own needs and wants.

We're always told... turn the other cheek. Well... My father would say, "beat his ass! Don't let anyone screw you over". While my mother would say, "it's not worth it, let it go and move on. Tomorrow it wont matter anyways".

Ahh well... It is what it is. The glass isn't half full or half empty. It's what ever you want it to be. To me.. It's just a glass of water.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

will be following..



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Gay marriage will eventually be approved by the church. Jesus never spoke out against it, it doesn't contradict anything aside from some archaic verses in the old testament from 3000+ years ago that are filled with all kinds of unrealistic outdated commandments. There's really no logical reason to keep a viewpoint that is so archaic. It's like arguing for slavery because it used to be part of our culture. Treating other people unfairly is wrong, regardless of individual belief systems.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Milah

Since the catholic "church" is not a set of bricks, nor the Vatican hierarchy surrounded by and adorned in insane riches and wealth, maybe the real church - the people - should all get a vote to see what the planet of catholics has to say about whether the Catechism should be reviewed to support gay marriage/rights or not.

I wonder if the results of that global vote would be contrary or supportive of what the TV and internet is saying?


Last I checked, the church isn't a democracy. It is an assertion of what they believe god wants. If they let everyone vote on it, then it wouldn't really be coming from god, would it?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Gay marriage will eventually be approved by the church. Jesus never spoke out against it, it doesn't contradict anything aside from some archaic verses in the old testament from 3000+ years ago that are filled with all kinds of unrealistic outdated commandments. There's really no logical reason to keep a viewpoint that is so archaic. It's like arguing for slavery because it used to be part of our culture. Treating other people unfairly is wrong, regardless of individual belief systems.


Approved by a valid church? I doubt it. Jesus said in the NT that he didn't come to change laws but to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:17
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

You shouldn't speak for any church unless you're part of that fold. If you were not aware of the above, then you are likely not a part or practice as those in the churches.

As long as that church is practicing what is in the bible, then they would not change their minds about it. It's in the OT. The NT goes hand in hand with the OT. Without the OT, you don't have the NT. One is history and prophecy and the other is the fulfillment of that prophecy as well as continued teachings for all instead of just one people. Jesus didn't speak out against pedophilia as well, but do you really think he would have been ok with it?

On what authority can you say that people shouldn't believe in an "archaic" viewpoint? Keep in mind that we have philosophies and sciences that would be considered "archaic" as well.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

By church, I mean the Catholic Church. Just 30-40 years ago, the concept of a female priest was unheard of. I see the gay marriage issue as similar. In a few decades minimum the Pope will approve it and it will be the norm.

I'm well aware of that verse in Matthew, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Claiming that verse justifies the anti gay stance is straw grasping. My point was that Jesus never spoke out against it. You could use that verse in Matthew to justify anything in the Old Testament. It doesn't make the viewpoint valid in the least. By referencing that verse, you are saying that all the commandments in Leviticus should be followed to a T, which is downright ridiculous. Sorry, the view is still extremely outdated. Jesus spoke out against many OT practices including stoning people for adultery. But wait according to that verse, Jesus must support stoning folks for adultery... except he didn't. Comparing the teachings of Jesus with the OT commandments is night and day, and if you don't understand what Jesus meant by empathy and the golden rule, then I don't know what to tell you.


Jesus didn't speak out against pedophilia as well, but do you really think he would have been ok with it?


Why do you folks always compare homosexuality to pedophilia? It's apples to oranges. Pedophilia hurts children. Do unto others.... Homosexuality does not harm anybody or cause suffering to anybody. Oppressing them does. Treating them unfairly does. Really simple stuff yet society still clings onto archaic viewpoints like the anti gay passage in Leviticus, acting like they over ride the golden rule. They do not (if you consider yourself Christian at least).


On what authority can you say that people shouldn't believe in an "archaic" viewpoint? Keep in mind that we have philosophies and sciences that would be considered "archaic" as well.


On what authority can you say that people SHOULD believe that viewpoint? It doesn't automatically hold true because nobody said we shouldn't. Have you even read the whole book of Leviticus? If not, go read it again and tell me it's not outdated. Leviticus condemns people for wearing clothing with more than one type of fabric, for eating shellfish, when these thing are commonplace today, yet nobody speaks out against folks for doing it. Nobody preaches that people who eat crab are going to hell. But they cling to the literal interpretation of that ONE command. Why? Give me a reason that avoids being hypocritical.

What archaic sciences are you talking about? Science constantly updates itself when new information is discovered. It's the exact opposite of archaic.

edit on 5-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There will never be female priests, and The Catholic Church will never condone same sex, so called "marriage".

2 people of the same gender cannot have "sex". They are mutually masterbating, plain and simple.

Period. End of story.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Barcs

There will never be female priests, and The Catholic Church will never condone same sex, so called "marriage".

2 people of the same gender cannot have "sex". They are mutually masterbating, plain and simple.

Period. End of story.


Okay, well if you say it, it must be true. Love is love, but if you honestly believe that nonsense, you haven't been paying attention. The church has been slowly updating itself over the years to stay relevant. Jesus didn't care about same sex couples, there's no reason we should. His teachings directly contradict the way so many people judge them over the way they are. Homosexuals can have sex. Remember oral sex is still a type of sex, so is anal. 2 practices that heterosexual couples engage in as well. Oral sex is not masturbation. If you think it is, then you need to look up the words.
edit on 9-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join