Re: Sexual immorality

[WorldWarrior]

"So IF Jesus was the Godman as Catholics think, then WHY would he do something that he knew his followers, both present and future, would consider a de facto rule in the Church - i.e. priesthood = male. That was the unchanging view of all Christianity until the 20th century.



Gosh--whstever happened to the magisterium?


Snd why did we stop burning witches and heretics a couple hundred years ago?

[WorldWarrior]

"Outside of some liberal Christian denominations and reform Jews - I know of no Christian church, or denomination, or orthodox or conservative Jews, or Islam...practically all of Monotheism - that supports homosexual marriages. That is not strictly a "Catholic" teaching, it is a settled understanding of what the sacrament of Marriage is throughout the whole world."



This makes it sounds as though it's a small group of disreputable suspects hanging at a dark street corner--instead if Millions of Christians around the world.

[SquirleyWurley]

On the one subject, male priests, I didn't think the gospels used the term 'priest' when referring to any disciples, but I can't deny that 'the 12' men were very prominent, and I can see why in those times many things were inferred about leadership involving either the number twelve, or maleness, etc.

On the subject of sacraments in Christianity, I heard that marriage was declared a sacrament in 1215 AD and that one of the Vatican library's first liturgical documents was from 600, celebrating some sort of bond between two same-sex people.  I haven't studied the subject well enough to figure out what I think of it for certain.

Nonetheless, for many many centuries, the sacrament of marriage was simply a union between a man and a woman, and again, when it comes to sacramental, ritual, or magical thinking, I have no problem with the way some people/groups place extreme importance upon certain symbols or aspects of the procedure, so long as no one is hurt.  My concern is with how civil society handles contracts and citizenship, it's about avoiding the appearance (or reality) of second-class citizenship of homosexuals, not with the rules for religious rites.

[SquirleyWurley]

Without having looked into the subject more, all I can say is 1) I do understand that a late official mention of marriage as a sacrament (in 1215 AD or whatever) doesn't mean it wasn't seen as a sacrament far earlier, and 2) it wouldn't surprise me if a particular liturgy could be interpreted in different ways re: the intent of the ceremony, the dating of the document, etc.

For me it's interesting, but without knowing more about it I could hardly offer a serious argument one way or another on the subject.