Posted on 11/20/2010 12:59:42 PM PST by Pyro7480
Catholic ping!
Ping!
Catholic ping!
Why is the Pope hiding behind a women?
All this time we have been told that there needs to be a Pope to teach the faith, after all Scripture is too hard for us to understand. Now he needs a women to translate what he meant to say?
LOL! Just LOL!
Sometimes, absurdity should be left to stand on its own
It is immoral for a male prostitute to give anal sex to a man.
It is no more immoral for that same male prostitute to also wear a condom, and it might help with some diseases.
There is no attempt to or affect of avoiding pregnancy because the man receiving can’t get pregnant, and the seed will be spilled/wasted regardless of whether a condom is used.
It is not a new development to say that such a homosexual male protitute may wear a condom, but it is new for a pope to discuss the topic and to suggest that male homosexual condom use may make their immoral act less immoral (less selfish).
If someone is familiar with Thomistic ethics, this is not a surprise. If the reason that you use a condom is to prevent disease, and not for prevention of conception, it is permissible. Thomistic ethics does not consider secondary factors or secondary consequences. For instance, it does not consider the issue of homosexuality in this decision, but only the prevention of disease. It is a clever way of dealing with moral issues, but it is also the reason that Thomistic ethics is strongly criticized.
That is very much the heart of Catholicism and allows for changing doctrine ..That is how one can have homosexual priests and still teach that homosexuality is a damning sin
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Maybe we all needs a women. I'se a women an' I'se sure a lot of pippil here at fripperpublic needs me.
Piping hot new interpretations available daily from your favorite Mrs. Jiggery-Popery!
Over and out!
Sadly, FoxNews is about to get this story wrong.
You wrote:
“That is very much the heart of Catholicism and allows for changing doctrine ..That is how one can have homosexual priests and still teach that homosexuality is a damning sin”
That comments smacks of the worst kind of religious ignorance on your part. Every Church and sect has sinners - including yours. Does your sect teach against sin? Do you still have sinners in your sect anyway? Does that mean your sect changed teachings? No.
Anti-Catholicism = ignorance.
Wow, isn’t it something that humans are still sinful, yet knowing full well that sin is sin.
Ignorance in the RF? Reminds me of Aunt Pittypat in "Gone With the Wind"
As the fires began to rage, she said,
Indeed.. but we call sin sin..we do not obfuscate the issue.
You wrote:
“Indeed.. but we call sin sin..we do not obfuscate the issue.”
So do we. You are the one obfuscating. You called homosexuality a sin. Wouldn’t it be homosexual sex that is the sin? Homosexual attraction is a disorder. The sin is acting on the impulses not experiencing the impulses themselves. This clear example of you now knowing what you’re talking about only highlights that original ignorance all the more.
Anti-Catholicism = Ignorance.
This is an example of scriptural ignorance.
Calling homosexual "attraction" not a sin but a disorder, begins the error . Sin is sin
Christ says it is not necessary to ACT on the impulse for it to be sin. Just the thought or the attraction is the sin
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The root of sin is in our heart.. God looks at and judges the heart.
Homosexual "attraction " is an abomination before God, not just a "disorder"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.