Divorce, Gay life: who is without sin among you, let be the 1st to throw a stone! H.H. Francis

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well we all know that hardly any Christians follow the rest of the rules in Leviticus. However just the sheer ridiculousness of the laws found in the book of Leviticus should be enough for most people to concede they aren't divinely inspired.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I dont consider homosexuality any more or less serious as a sin as lying, stealing or what ever sin you care to mention.
In fact if its two consenting adults, I believe its not really my business and I dont see it as particularly as heinous as some that interfear with anothers human rights

This is the first legit thing i''ve seen you post... Congrats

And yet you ruined it with your final statement... No one is asking you to partake... Or suggesting you should

Lol

a reply to: Akragon

Maybe I should have put a little lol or smiley face to prevent you from being offended

My mistake, my apologies

I shall endeavor to make my humor a little more transparent lest I offend another

Now I guess the onus is on you to post something legit
Lol

a reply to: Joecanada11

Guess when I think about it joecanada, it does occur to me that Christians don't follow the Jewish laws
Hmm, Jewish laws, hmmm
I wonder if they are called Jewish laws because they pertain to the Jews
Not christians

Ellipsis...

The pope's document is rather a moderate one. I'd wish it to be more radical but it is not. Not because I defend gay marriage. But because it is a time to say the things as they are, both in morality and in other areas that I prefer to talk.

The faithful Catholics should be aware there could be further development down the road, and that the current document is the first step towards a better and wider understanding what it is to follow Jesus in the real life.

Let consider how Jesus Christ lived himself. In "Chastity" is the official term. Without defining what "Chastity" actually is. Well, let name it, the men would have had ejaculation of sperm anyway even involuntarily, and that is not a secret neither taboo anymore. As long as Jesus was born male with functional body, as we believe he was without any deficiency. Was Jesus aware and awaken of that process, even if He never ever caused it voluntarily? It is a simple logic. As Son of God perhaps he could stop his body from functioning normally. But that is not what he came for. He came to be fully human, as we are told.

Having so close relationship with Mary Magdalene puts a lot of inconvenient questions that the Church fathers from the second and third centuries preferred to answer in one particular way only, and to ban every book that speaks otherwise. Not counting the number of those books that are the majority of written documents. Still, what is left in the canonical Gospels cannot but rise those questions again. Why on earth Mary Magdalene would hug the feet of Jesus repeatedly, before and after Resurrection? Is that the common way to express Christian faith? After all, there were more women there who didn't do so. Only one woman who is named in the 4 canonical gospels as Mary Magdalene. Even if we sideline all non-canonical books both ancient and newly discovered.

The questions don't end with Magdalene though. How deep was the friendship between Jesus and John? Even if we rule out any physical intercourse, the spiritual intimacy is clear from the text of John's own Gospel about the Last Supper. The other disciples didn't lean on the bosom of Jesus, or did they but it wasn't recorded may be? Did Jesus have other friends before, in his 30 years non recorded life on Earth? It is logical he would have them since he would love everyone exceedingly, and some of those young people around him would have answered that love more than they would do to someone else. Again, that may well be within spiritual friendships, but to deny their existence after we have records from canonical book, is not to follow the truth.

What if tomorrow we have the chance to unbiased look from the clouds and see the real life of Jesus, let say recorded by angels who surely witnessed it in detail. (to avoid other wording that I use in other threads). Perhaps many things would be different about the real life of Jesus. Again, the Church fathers decided in favor of one particular way that at best is only part of the truth.

Jesus, as we are told, lived all his life in Chastity. As God he could do as he pleases including to restrict any relationships that otherwise naturally would have occurred at some stage of his life, IF he decides to do so. And that is a big if. Some of his disciples do the same today, living in chastity. Let be realistic to acknowledge that only few of the consecrated people practice the chastity fully and during all of their lifespan. Many times it is a cover of a variety of "moral disorders" if I have to use the terminology adopted by the Church. Shall we call "moral disorder" the above described intimate affections of the Son of God, even if they were purely spiritual? According to some very fundamental people who pretend to be the best of the best in the Catholic Church, such instances in the real life today would clearly signify all the evils, even if the man/woman maintains only spiritual friendship. What if someone leans on someone's bosom during Sunday mass? What if a woman hugs the feet of a man, God forbid of a priest after mass? Would they be called crazy, sinful, demonic possessed or all of that together? Jesus had that and that is well recorded, even if we choose again to ignore the other texts after those long 1990 years given to humanity to test everything and hold the truth. Many Christians just don't get it, and won't get it. But the rest should not be bound by that chain that limits the love to certain occasions giving food to the poor, but not always. Love of God is restricted to Caritas/compassion, but not always. Perhaps those people with hearts not fully open to God's ways, would find it difficult to love even in heaven. However, I am not troubled of their experience afterlife, but of the experience of majority of us on this life. Because that view, of Caritas = God's Love, is presented in most cases as the position of the Church of Jesus Christ on Earth. Let there be Caritas always at least. Because it doesn't start and end with Sunday second check for the poor.

It should be addressed one more issue of historical importance. The early Christian "Agape" gatherings. Demonized by pagan Rome historians, they were subsequently stopped by church fathers. Did the early agape include something more than "leaning on one's bosom" after the example of John? I don't have the answer, but it is worth to research that question in depth without prejudice. It is strange how the martyrs decided to die cruel death only because of Caritas kind of love, or some unexplained divine encounters, be they within the sphere of intimacy or otherwise. What is clear we are not told the truth even for the martyrs. Because one cannot convert a hundred soldiers only by saying how good it is to die for the Lord who died for us on the cross. Good, but not to the extend to convert hundreds of pagans who followed their own moral codes of their own religions. In some cases those religions offered a more strict moral code than today's society. The 10 commandments practically existed under some form in every major religion. So what is it that made difference? Today's prayer warriors that go to everyday mass and proclaim judgment on all who do not think like them, would hardly convert one person to Catholicism, not hundreds of soldiers to die a cruel death on the next day! There was something else that the people died for, and I want to know what it was.

Let also say, that virtually every society lived on earth had some form of homosexuality, be it recognized officially or not. One can check what wikipedia has in store. It is not just pagan, it is a part of the human way of life, and it finds its place in a number of "friendships" of early Christian saints, be they only spiritual affection, as we are officially told. Check to see how many friends are made both saints, as martyrs or as scholars. It is not only David and Jonathan who loved each other, although spiritual, as we are told.

Back to the pope, he might be actually late and short of saying the things as they are. Hopefully, his first steps in this and other directions (preferred by me!) are not his last steps. Taking into account his advanced age and his good will of change coupled with inability and resistance among the hi ranks, one cannot but ask, where the entire reform goes to, only 5 years from now. Unless we meet the Lord in the air by that time. If that doesn't happen, if Nibiru doesn't strike us tomorrow, as some say, then it remains we continue the struggle day by day. And then it remains the pope if he is honest in his plans, something I believe, to continue them by appointing people who would continue that road further, not going back to practices that proved to be futile in Middle ages. With very hi moral code and very low moral practice in first place by top clergy. It is better to have lower expectations of embattled humanity that in most cases "survives" in economic and other troubles, than to put barriers that no one touches with fingers. Isn't it what the pharisees were accused of by Jesus himself?

The Synods of 2 years took all energy of the Church in a time it could be spend for other better goals, not to discuss endlessly what is already a matter of fact inside the Church. The Synods should follow the view of the majority bishops for more liberal ruling on all that. NOt gay marriages, as those conservative ladies damn it all together. Because it was not a gay marriage the relation between John and Jesus, and yet it existed at the core of our religion! The Synods bowed down before a minority on key positions that warned of schism. Let say the things. If those people want to do schism they should go. Not to blackmail the entire Church and majority of bishops /clergy that think otherwise. I hope pope Francis will take advantage of the God's dice on that election night 3 years ago, and will move to quickly overrun those who prefer Middle age Christianity. History knows turns, although I don't believe it is possible for them to take the course again, but history knows changes.

The Church doesn't change rules or invent new rules. It updates rules back to its roots. Let it be said plainly, that those origins were persistently changed by church fathers in 2nd and 3rd century before the Nicaea council that stamped everything for a first time (followed by many others). Jesus never did or said so. Those who spoke in his name, they did so.

I would know what to believe when the heavenly hosts come. The problem is they are still not coming, and we still remain bound as in Purgatory, and at times in history as in Hell on Earth. I believe the popes are the last ones to want that. Only bold reforms could change things to better. Not to allow gay couples to marry in churches. But to change mentality, and rulings wherever is necessary. Actually the entire review of morality is one small portion of the reform that was expected for 3+ years already, and that is not seen at the end of the tunnel. Shall we expect unpleasant event to first befall the Church, be it human made or celestial, before we move to figure it out how Jesus told the disciples, having ALL documents on the table not only select few? I believe that moment will ultimately come.

Did the " ferociously orthodox African bishops" torpedo the reform of Francis?

Is the new document de facto admittance of a failed reform, not just about gay and divorced issues?

blogs.spectator.co.uk...
Andrew Brown of the Guardian says that Francis has ‘lost this battle for reform’ and that this statement represents ‘a draw between liberals and conservatives’.

The Kasperites have been dumped, effectively. Hardline German liberals must be asking themselves why Francis encouraged them so extravagantly, then squashed their ambitions.

The answer lies in the proceedings of the 2015 Synod, where the liberals were outmanoeuvred by (among others) ferociously orthodox African bishops.

If that is true, or part of the truth, one can ask is the Church run by a clan, sect or tribe with its own rules. And why the cardinals elected in 2013 eminent cardinal Bergoglio when he scored with roughly 1/3 of the votes, the other half being cast for cardinal Ouellet of Montreal who then granted those votes to Bergoglio. Wasn't it all about to be given a voice to the Third World with its many problems (more significant than the divorce and gays) and especially Latin America that have 500 million Catholics or roughly half of all? Also a chance of an outside cardinal to make a reform so much delayed?

After all expectations, we arrive at the beginning of the 4th year of a pontificate, and we start again as a fail start. It is not about gays and divorced, because they always existed and somehow accommodated inside the Church, even in its hi ranks. It is about whether we will finally have a Church closer to the needs of the billion followers. Or repeated attempts for reforms will be blocked time and again by people who should not have the ultimate say of how the world biggest Church runs. History is full of them, and we see them again. Minority that pretends to hold the hand of God. Rome should be smarter than that.

The shocking revelation, if true, exposes a lot of inconvenient questions. I don't know how pope Francis will balance after such revelation. I don't think it is quite exaggerated, having in mind statements of bishops during and after the Synod. Perhaps new updated way for the next conclave is one of the possibilities, guaranteeing the reforms won't be stopped by a secluded minority on key positions.

Whatever it takes for the divorced and gay to reintegrate in the Church (and I don't think they are outside the Church even now), it will take much more for the rest of hundreds millions to swallow the fact that in 21st century we have a non-functioning Church with quarrels rivaling those in Middle age cardinals. Something must change and change fast.

Those who see the apocalypse may be right or wrong. But if they have to educate their children and grandchildren in the same system, they may change their view. Because "your sons will be your judges" says the Gospel words of Jesus. It is absurd today's status quo to be accepted by the new generation of smart phone kids who play computer games much more elaborated than the games of the Synod. They will just laught at it and will choose the next Jedi knight instead. And that will be the biggest failure of a Church who didn't find the proper way to teach of Jesus Christ for 1990 years. Or let make them 1900 years thus excluding the first generation disciples.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can see some wrong assumptions that are leading you perhaps to misinterpret with the Bible really says:

Let me mention one by one to be clear:

1) to Assume that the term Homosexual or Homosexuality was written in any of the original writings of the Bible. This is
false since the these psychological or psychiatric terms were first used in the end of XIX century, it was just by 1886, when first time Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both laymen and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.

Please read:

en.wikipedia.org...

2) To assume that in a very liberal translation of the bible, trying to insert modern terms on it, you can replace the word Sodomy by Homosexuality. This is in general not true, since even in Psychology or Psychiatry Homosexuality is defined as is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. Sodomy does not represent any Romantic attraction, it can exist without any love in between people that practice it, is part of many prostitution services, and also it can exist in between persons of the opposite gender as well as of the same gender, being a sin in every case.

Sodomy is a sexual practice, either if you reject or accept it, it is not any kind of orientation, it is all what attains to use any parts of the body that are not clean for sex, like the digestive tract in intercourse, but also in a more ample sense it includes not honorable or not consensual sex, rape, sexual vexation, unclean sex and adultery.

www.faithstreet.com...

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

3) To assume that also in some scriptures you can replace the word Sacred Prostitution by Homosexuality, as it happened in Leviticus, that what condemns is a series of rituals of prostitution practiced for religious reasons among the believers or followers of the Canaanean God Molech or to Baal. These acts included sodomy with priests of the mentioned deity, that were performed after a couple sacrificed their own babies to such a god, as the way to end the period of impurity that such an act carried out.

www.religioustolerance.org...

www.mountainviewchapel.com...

Becareful with the translations of Bible that claim to be accurate because they can lead you think that Moses had horns when he came back to the Mount Sinai, as it happened to Micheangelo, who read a wrong translation before to make his so famous sculpture of the Hebrew Leader.

Please check:

taylormarshall.com...

www.gracesacramento.org...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well your so called Christ followed the Hebrew laws ( they weren't Jewish laws there was no such thing as Jews in the bible) yet followers of Christ claim exemption from the law with very little reason. Oh right some lunatic named Paul said the law no longer matters.

Yet Christians still use the old laws to persecute homosexuals and promote tithing. Picking and choosing which laws they will follow.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well your so called Christ followed the Hebrew laws ( they weren't Jewish laws there was no such thing as Jews in the bible) yet followers of Christ claim exemption from the law with very little reason. Oh right some lunatic named Paul said the law no longer matters.

Yet Christians still use the old laws to persecute homosexuals and promote tithing. Picking and choosing which laws they will follow.

Well thank you Joe, I will remember to clear every theological conundrum you have so I can rest easy in my faith

7 years a Christian, that's so sad, 7 years and you were never taught the truth, or studied the truth

It's funny, I explained something to you in another thread and you can't grasp it

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Raggedyman

I can see some wrong assumptions that are leading you perhaps to misinterpret with the Bible really says:

Let me mention one by one to be clear:

1) to Assume that the term Homosexual or Homosexuality was written in any of the original writings of the Bible. This is
false since the these psychological or psychiatric terms were first used in the end of XIX century, it was just by 1886, when first time Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both laymen and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.

Please read:

en.wikipedia.org...

2) To assume that in a very liberal translation of the bible, trying to insert modern terms on it, you can replace the word Sodomy by Homosexuality. This is in general not true, since even in Psychology or Psychiatry Homosexuality is defined as is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. Sodomy does not represent any Romantic attraction, it can exist without any love in between people that practice it, is part of many prostitution services, and also it can exist in between persons of the opposite gender as well as of the same gender, being a sin in every case.

Sodomy is a sexual practice, either if you reject or accept it, it is not any kind of orientation, it is all what attains to use any parts of the body that are not clean for sex, like the digestive tract in intercourse, but also in a more ample sense it includes not honorable or not consensual sex, rape, sexual vexation, unclean sex and adultery.

www.faithstreet.com...

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

3) To assume that also in some scriptures you can replace the word Sacred Prostitution by Homosexuality, as it happened in Leviticus, that what condemns is a series of rituals of prostitution practiced for religious reasons among the believers or followers of the Canaanean God Molech or to Baal. These acts included sodomy with priests of the mentioned deity, that were performed after a couple sacrificed their own babies to such a god, as the way to end the period of impurity that such an act carried out.

www.religioustolerance.org...

www.mountainviewchapel.com...

Becareful with the translations of Bible that claim to be accurate because they can lead you think that Moses had horns when he came back to the Mount Sinai, as it happened to Micheangelo, who read a wrong translation before to make his so famous sculpture of the Hebrew Leader.

Please check:

taylormarshall.com...

www.gracesacramento.org...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Thanks mr angel

I will work out my own theology, I have seen the poison of the Catholic Churches teachings and perversions of the gospel

Why, if your faith in the papacy is so awesome, is just about every Catholic country, like phillipines, South America are so third world
You have it wrong

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's not that I can't grasp it. It's because the whole story is so illogical. One set of rules for the tribes of the hebrews, then a different gospel for those who were directly involved with Christ , and then another gospel for everyone afterwards. Sacrificing one man for the lives of the gentiles just doesn't make sense. Period.

The whole flip flop of these rules for some and those rules for others and then faith and grace for everyone else is just nonsense. As far as you using the term truth I found the truth in that the bible is just plain wrong.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, it is interesting to see that in your 'every Catholic country' commentary you strategically dismissed Italy, Ireland, Poland, Spain, France, Austria, Belgium, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Portugal, Croatia, the Canadian Province of Quebec and at least half of Germany and Netherlands and two thirds of Switzerland that are all very Catholic and in the European Union or being partners of it.

Now, let me say Who said so? Do you know who was the person that divided the world in first, second and Third? like in social classes of the Victorian era? Hint: Give me the name of the Judge and I will say you to whom the verdict will favor!

it was Winston Churchill that like any good Conservative British of his time was extremely classist and also so much resented against Francisco Franco, who he personally hatred, that he decided that Europe ended in the Pyrenees and not in Gibraltar and any Hispanic Country was in his funny Classification of the world in the Third class of course.

Now, everybody knows that you can live much better in Chile, Colombia, Costarica, Panama or Argentina than in many countries that had at some time the 'honor' of to be exploited by the British Empire, like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, all Eastern Africa as well as Belice, Jamaica or Guyana.

Even the most miserable of the Latin Americans has a toilate and running water in their bathrooms, something that is still a luxury in all the fomer British Indian Subcontinent or Africa.

Have you ever thought why no body ever speaks of the Second World? because in the funny mind of Winston Churchill it corresponded to all the Communist Europe and the Soviet Union!

It is hilarious since in the so called second world it was a rare luxury, reserved only for the members of the nomenclature, to have a good car, an automatic laundry, an automatic dish washing machine or even a good sound machine or digital TV set, personal computers, things that any middle class family in Latin America had access to since 1970s.

Finally let me point that if there is a nation that America likes a lot to imitate in many aspects and to dream to be its continuator in modern times is the Roman Empire which capital was the city of Rome, the same that is the place where the Holy see is located.

I hope nobody at future put himself in the so arrogant position of Judge of the world, like Sir Winston Churchill once pretended to, to try to create a new universal Classification of the nations based on the external debt of each one, because if that happen guess what would be the world of America at that moment? I think third class might look as a luxury in its comparison, and believe me if that happen it would surprise me if there is not an avalanche of Americans pushing the wall, that Mr. Trump is planning to build, down to try to move to Mexico, of course illegaly!

Let me remind you that it is a very basic principle in Accounting that your Patrimony( Capital) is what remains when you subtract your Passive( Debts) from your Actives. If for any reason you can't pay anymore your debts it is clear that your actives are no longer yours at some point but of your banker or creditor.

Lets pray that the Chinese bankers don't apply this rule to America and , instead to confiscate all the American Industries in their territory in payment for the astronomic debt owed to them, decide to continue buying treasury bonds that frankly are nice Philatelic collector's pieces but only God knows if are going to maintain their value at future.

Thanks ,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

It's not that I can't grasp it. It's because the whole story is so illogical. One set of rules for the tribes of the hebrews, then a different gospel for those who were directly involved with Christ , and then another gospel for everyone afterwards. Sacrificing one man for the lives of the gentiles just doesn't make sense. Period.

The whole flip flop of these rules for some and those rules for others and then faith and grace for everyone else is just nonsense. As far as you using the term truth I found the truth in that the bible is just plain wrong.

I am sorry Joe, you dont understand
There is only one set of laws, two covenants, the old and new, for those with Christ and those without.

I am sorry no one ever taught you the difference and you never studied the difference

a reply to: Raggedyman

My church experience was definitely bad. Think of Canadian versions of creflo dollar or Kenneth Copeland as my pastors. I sure as hell read the bible though. Probably more than my pastors did. Still there are many contradictions and things that as time went by that made me believe it's not the truth. That's okay I'm not sorry at all about it. Anyways sorry give you such a hard time. Your belief is your belief. And I've noticed you aren't the judgemental type.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

My church experience was definitely bad. Think of Canadian versions of creflo dollar or Kenneth Copeland as my pastors. I sure as hell read the bible though. Probably more than my pastors did. Still there are many contradictions and things that as time went by that made me believe it's not the truth. That's okay I'm not sorry at all about it. Anyways sorry give you such a hard time. Your belief is your belief. And I've noticed you aren't the judgemental type.

Copeland and Dollar types and you stayed???
I am sorry you thought you should have stayed, I think they are both evil men, those in that type of ministry are, with a very sinister ministry, so much for the non judgmental type.

Unfortunately reading the bible is not as good an idea as many suggest it is, most often than not people come into it with pre conceived ideas and they dont change.

Studying the bible, thats different.

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, it is interesting to see that in your 'every Catholic country' commentary you strategically dismissed Italy, Ireland, Poland, Spain, France, Austria, Belgium, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Portugal, Croatia, the Canadian Province of Quebec and at least half of Germany and Netherlands and two thirds of Switzerland that are all very Catholic and in the European Union or being partners of it.

Now, let me say Who said so? Do you know who was the person that divided the world in first, second and Third? like in social classes of the Victorian era? Hint: Give me the name of the Judge and I will say you to whom the verdict will favor!

it was Winston Churchill that like any good Conservative British of his time was extremely classist and also so much resented against Francisco Franco, who he personally hatred, that he decided that Europe ended in the Pyrenees and not in Gibraltar and any Hispanic Country was in his funny Classification of the world in the Third class of course.

Now, everybody knows that you can live much better in Chile, Colombia, Costarica, Panama or Argentina than in many countries that had at some time the 'honor' of to be exploited by the British Empire, like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, all Eastern Africa as well as Belice, Jamaica or Guyana.

Even the most miserable of the Latin Americans has a toilate and running water in their bathrooms, something that is still a luxury in all the fomer British Indian Subcontinent or Africa.

Have you ever thought why no body ever speaks of the Second World? because in the funny mind of Winston Churchill it corresponded to all the Communist Europe and the Soviet Union!

It is hilarious since in the so called second world it was a rare luxury, reserved only for the members of the nomenclature, to have a good car, an automatic laundry, an automatic dish washing machine or even a good sound machine or digital TV set, personal computers, things that any middle class family in Latin America had access to since 1970s.

Finally let me point that if there is a nation that America likes a lot to imitate in many aspects and to dream to be its continuator in modern times is the Roman Empire which capital was the city of Rome, the same that is the place where the Holy see is located.

I hope nobody at future put himself in the so arrogant position of Judge of the world, like Sir Winston Churchill once pretended to, to try to create a new universal Classification of the nations based on the external debt of each one, because if that happen guess what would be the world of America at that moment? I think third class might look as a luxury in its comparison, and believe me if that happen it would surprise me if there is not an avalanche of Americans pushing the wall, that Mr. Trump is planning to build, down to try to move to Mexico, of course illegaly!

Let me remind you that it is a very basic principle in Accounting that your Patrimony( Capital) is what remains when you subtract your Passive( Debts) from your Actives. If for any reason you can't pay anymore your debts it is clear that your actives are no longer yours at some point but of your banker or creditor.

Lets pray that the Chinese bankers don't apply this rule to America and , instead to confiscate all the American Industries in their territory in payment for the astronomic debt owed to them, decide to continue buying treasury bonds that frankly are nice Philatelic collector's pieces but only God knows if are going to maintain their value at future.

Thanks ,

The Angel of Lightness

You know what angel, many of those countrys are not very nice either, Spain, Ireland Italy.

Seems like the Catholic touch is the political touch of death to me.

"Angel", I understand your position. You stick to the doctrine, that is something changeable in time, while you applaud the forgiveness of the pope at the current time. May be you will correct me.

When one speaks of "sodomy" one would understand today first "bestiality" before any homosexuality. Indeed the words differed in time as you correctly noticed. I would not equal the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah to just homosexual behavior as understood today but of something much worse, perhaps exactly what we would call today bestiality or "went after other flesh", whatever the exact name.

The Bible gives other examples as well that were not only not punished but lauded. They cannot be compared to the same as the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is easier for theologians to say it is the same. But how they would explain that the Bible has enough episodes of homoerotic relationships, even if it is not explicitly talking of fulfilled sexual desires. What did David and Jonathan do is secret. What is written goes farther than any imaginable spiritual relationship could go today. Medieval authors were quick to say, look in heaven the friendship of David and Jonathan would look like un-friendship...well, wait, let first define what their friendship were here on earth, before we imagine what the heavenly reward would be.

1 Samuel 18 (KJ21) www.biblegateway.com... 18 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword and to his bow and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 20
42 And Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever.’”


That should be foundation of the updated theological doctrine that is not any dogma. I already talked about Jesus and John that is known to everyone who have read the gospel of John even once. It is absurd how some people still demonize the true love between persons of the same sex, if the Lord had it too! Or said in another way, if at least one person in their families had it too, may be son, daughter, if not they themselves in early age.

Moreover, we all know how many wives did St David have, the great ...grand father of Jesus Christ. He was not an exception in that time. Would he receive communion if he lived today? Does he receive communion in heaven may be? Just saying, without entering in elaborated never ending debate about sacramental discipline, that is also something quite changeable in time.

On the two Synods that took nearly 3 years, the majority of bishops were on different more liberal positions than the closing documents. As I posted before, it seems stubborn African bishops plus some others made their way thru.

It is hard to judge what is sin in God's eyes. I like the words of pope Francis "who am I to judge".
For ex. Is masturbation sin, when it is never mentioned in the Bible? Why then it is put inside the list of Intrinsic Evil catholicity.wikia.com... together with:
"Murder, Genocide, Abortion, Contraception, Euthanasia, Masturbation, Suicide"

It is sort of full craziness.

Instead of speaking of other crucial questions that will determine whether human civilization continues or not. Seems they are absent from public debate intentionally, and the public space instead is filled with Renaissance picturesque discussion of whether the Sistine Chapel must show the bodies of the saints naked or they should be clothed post factum. Everyone who walked those world top galleries knows the naked body (both male and female) was not taboo since then. We all know many of the clerics had their free style life since then. The son of pope Alexander VI cardinal Cesare Borhgia posed as Jesus for a famous painting. Is Alexander VI in the hell?

Why then that heated debate again? If not to buying time and silence other much more important questions. At the same time, fanatics and liberals will continue to quarrel, with the fanatics never admitting many of them had that "sinful lifestyle" at least sometimes in their lives. I know enough of such examples. The followed fanaticism is to excuse themselves for what they did wrongly in their early life.

I guess those who never sinned in the flesh, would be more likely to show mercy. As I am sure the pope himself didn't sin with immorality, and he is someone to show more open to those who are under the burden/law of the flesh (as Paul speaks). Because we know, we are freed of that law by the virtue of the resurrected Jesus.

www.reidsitaly.com...
The Resurrection (1494) by Pinturiccio in the Borgia Apartments of the Vatican - See more at: www.reidsitaly.com...

Let say it short and clear: the Moral is not a Dogma. The moral norms changed over time for God's saved people. Some of them were heavily influenced by the societies, as for ex. in the Victorian era. The Catholic Church of today probably doesn't want to go back then.

it is a time the Roman Catholic Church to finally take other important issues different from the pure moral norms. If those other issues are not taken into account, RCC risks to fail altogether, regardless the current moral debate. That's why I said, it seems it is invented only to buy time. Because there were always homosexuals and remarried people, some of whom were among the hi clergy, cardinals or even popes.

The balanced papal document is good may be. But the time won't wait endlessly for some old guards to tune their receivers. 3 years lost in debate for something well known to exist in the entire history. Those 3 years were vital. Tomorrow, let no one say we didn't have enough time, or we weren't warned. Because we were. Rome made such choice, to consecrate the last 3 years on moral dispute. Good. Now what is the next in the store for humanity?