Catholicism Is Dangerous Now, Apparently.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343947434' post='2461732']

At first, I thought you were going to respond to my position. Then I saw you, once again, verbally poo yourself.
[/quote]
Your post was verbal poo to begin with.

Who said anything about getting state permission to receive sacraments?

[4588686]

Sometimes I like to get on my bicycle and I ride and I ride and as I look up at the night sky I like to pretend that I'm piloting a rocket ship to a better world.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343947819' post='2461734']
Your post was verbal poo to begin with.

Who said anything about getting state permission to receive sacraments?
[/quote]
That's the reality of the modern state. You're supporting the continued presence of government in marriage. Are you now rejecting the current set up? Do you want governments to stop issuing marriage permission slips? Are you advocating that churches stop paying attention to the ridiculous marriage permission slip farce, and just bestow the sacrament?

[Not The Philosopher]

We're making more babies than them.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343842482' post='2461155']
You're probably just joking around. Even so the Church wouldn't approve of those things.
[/quote]
Marriage is a religous sacrament. Governments do not have the right to approve or disapprove marriage. So the Church does not need to approve or disapprove. If the gov. approves abnormal marriage, then it is not marriage and they should have their own and different name to avoid confusion. Many hetero couples in australia don't get married and refer to their partner as their partner. For social security purposes it is referred to as a defacto marriage ="in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" In this case Gods law! Attempts by people to get abnormal marriage approval by social law is just an attempt to flaunt the Church.
BTW this thread should be split between the debate and the lame boards.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1343949090' post='2461745']

Marriage is a religous sacrament. Governments do not have the right to approve or disapprove marriage. So the Church does not need to approve or disapprove. If the gov. approves abnormal marriage, then it is not marriage and they should have their own and different name to avoid confusion. Many hetero couples in australia don't get married and refer to their partner as their partner. For social security purposes it is referred to as a defacto marriage ="in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" In this case Gods law! Attempts by people to get abnormal marriage approval by social law is just an attempt to flaunt the Church.
BTW this thread should be split between the debate and the lame boards.
[/quote]

That really doesn't mesh with Catholic teaching. We are Catholic, we Catholics are Catholic before we are any nationality, or member of any political group of any kind. We have a duty to the social Kingship of Christ to infuse the Christian spirit into the whole of society, laws included. Putting conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, secular, relativistic, big government/state, small government/state or no government/state ideals above the teaching of the Church is a grave and serious error. Church teaching comes first, not political ideology. The Church clearly teaches governments have a duty to encourage true marriage and discourage unnatural unions. Thus far the Catholics that have objections to this teaching argue against it from a political ideology. Rather than from Catholic teaching.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343951805' post='2461760']
That really doesn't mesh with Catholic teaching. We are Catholic, we Catholics are Catholic before we are any nationality, or member of any political group of any kind. We have a duty to the social Kingship of Christ to infuse the Christian spirit into the whole of society, laws included. Putting conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, secular, relativistic, big government/state, small government/state or no government/state ideals above the teaching of the Church is a grave and serious error. Church teaching comes first, not political ideology. The Church clearly teaches governments have a duty to encourage true marriage and discourage unnatural unions. Thus far the Catholics that have objections to this teaching argue against it from a political ideology. Rather than from Catholic teaching.
[/quote]
I didn't realise the Church had its form of sharia law!
As far as I know in Christianity people have 'free choice'. The Church is a teacher of Gods law not an enforcer. They tried that and it turned very nasty! One of the teachings is that we must obey those in authority even if we feel it wrong. (we may protest or challenge lawfully)
What do the words[i] "Though Pilate is unjust, he is the lawful govenor and has power over me." And so the son of God obeys. [/i]Mean to you?
This is from the stations of the cross, but there is a scripture to back it up. I'll do a search if you insist on proof, as some Catholic recently disputed one of the stations with me. BTW are you arguing with me out of habit? I thought I would be on your side in this.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1343957000' post='2461801']
I didn't realise the Church had its form of sharia law!
As far as I know in Christianity people have 'free choice'. The Church is a teacher of Gods law not an enforcer. They tried that and it turned very nasty! One of the teachings is that we must obey those in authority even if we feel it wrong. (we may protest or challenge lawfully)
What do the words[i] "Though Pilate is unjust, he is the lawful govenor and has power over me." And so the son of God obeys. [/i]Mean to you?
This is from the stations of the cross, but there is a scripture to back it up. I'll do a search if you insist on proof, as some Catholic recently disputed one of the stations with me. BTW are you arguing with me out of habit? I thought I would be on your side in this.
[/quote]

Eh... I'm more concerned how you, from a fully Catholic point of view, answer [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2461155"]CCC 2105[/url] , and the document entitled "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons[/url]" that Anomaly and Soc posted earlier. Do you reject them, embrace them somehow, or something else?

Edited August 3, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343960377' post='2461810']
Eh... I'm more concerned how you, from a fully Catholic point of view, answer [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2461155"]CCC 2105[/url] , and the document entitled "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons[/url]" that Anomaly and Soc posted earlier. Do you reject them, embrace them somehow, or something else?
[/quote]Hey! Don't drag me into supporting the Catholic Church's position, LOL! I'm not Catholic so I don't have to follow it.

Apotheon sent me that link because I misrepreresented what the Church says on the matter. I'll excerpt the relative passage:


[left]The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,([url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn11"]11[/url]) [b]but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience[/b].([url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn12"]12[/url]) [b]Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person[/b].([url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn13"]13[/url]) [b]Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b][/left]
[left]It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a[i] de facto[/i] reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.([url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn14"]14[/url]) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.[/left]


[left]So basically, because Catholics would be the first to claim they don't have to follow an immoral law, they should not support a law that provides legal protection or garauntee rights to immoral acts. I think it's cutting a fine line, but we have existing legal 'Domestic Partnerships' where two people can establish a domestic relationship for legal gardianship, sharing wealth, shared residence, etc. It's not a marriage at all because it can be a parent and spouse, two unrelated people, etc. It cost $30 to register here in Hillsborough County or City of Tampa. It has NOTHING to do with a marriage. A marriage is a Domestic Partnership, but you can have a DP without a marriage. It's a big difference from establishing a relationship as a societal institution of marriage and a family. [/left]

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='Not The Philosopher' timestamp='1343948686' post='2461742']
We're making more babies than them.
[/quote]
priceless

[arfink]

[quote name='Not The Philosopher' timestamp='1343948686' post='2461742']
We're making more babies than them.
[/quote]

YAY. Hey, can I get some more props over here? This guy needs some!

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Not The Philosopher' timestamp='1343948686' post='2461742']
We're making more babies than them.
[/quote]
And they're probably adopting more than we are. Goes both ways.

[arfink]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1344014675' post='2462138']
And they're probably adopting more than we are. Goes both ways.
[/quote]

Last time I checked the only people I know who adopt are also Catholics. One family I know has adopted 12 children.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1344022975' post='2462274']
Last time I checked the only people I know who adopt are also Catholics. One family I know has adopted 12 children.
[/quote]
You apparently don't get out very much.

[Didacus]

I tell acquaintances that I am the worse kind of catholic - i am knowledgable of my religion, and faithful.