Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[thesometimesaint]

So, SSA is relatively rare; only about 7%, thus by default doctrine tends to be made by those without the problem. Hmmmm

 

SSA is between 1-3% of the population. Our doctrine is that no matter the source we are each responsible for our own actions. None of which justifies mistreating anyone.

[thesometimesaint]

This is absolutely true.

 

I went to Nyeri, Kenya in April of 2001 as a temporary missionary for the International Foursquare Church. In the areas our team worked in, either 2/3 or 3/4 of the people who had lived there were dead from Aids. ( I am using HIV and Aids interchangeably owing to my own ignorance).  We wondered at this because many of the families were Christian. In that area, Islam was not an issue.  We wondered why and then one of the men we were working with there, told us that in that tribal culture, it was believed that if a man got ill, he could be cured by having sex with a girl baby.  You can only imagine the vectors that created. I have no idea why this fact is not more well known.

 

The HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. It can hide in the body for many years and spring to life suddenly. So far there is no cure for AIDS but a few drugs show promise.

[EllenMaksoud]

SSA is between 1-3% of the population. Our doctrine is that no matter the source we are each responsible for our own actions. None of which justifies mistreating anyone.

I suppose the percentages depend upon who is telling it. Thank God it is as low as it is and I hope that your numbers are better. In retrospect, it is clear now that my stepfather should have killed me and I should have let him. I never had SSA, but knew for sure that something was really wrong.

 

Owing to a couple different incidents, I am completely sure I should be Mormon; that Heavenly Father wanted that. Sounds like a bit of megalomania doesn't it? That Heavenly Father could have a purpose for me, who would have thought that? Not one single person I have ever met in any Mormon establishment I have entered in the last three years has ever been anything but kind and accepting to me. And in response, I have obeyed all the covenants with the exception of warm liquid of unstated make up some mornings to help clear lungs that are ridden with COPD. So, in this case the Doctor trumps the rules.

 

The GA seems well aquainted with gays and lesbians, but intersex folk just apparently leave them scratching their heads.

 

What ever happens to my progression in the church, I am completely assured that Heavenly Father knows and his will is going to be accomplished.

[thesometimesaint]

I get my stats from sociological studies. I don't know about any one else. That any parent(step or otherwise) would seriously consider murdering their own children speaks to serious emotional and legal issues.

 

Ultimately I think God wants us all to be Saints, whether former day or Latter-day, but he will not violate our agency. So it is we who get to choose our beliefs.

 

We're a tremendously practical people. We're not WoW absolutists. The WoW sets up basic guidelines, and we adapt them to our immediate medical needs. IE; Having an Xray isn't particularly good for you. They do lead to an increase in the potential to develop cancers. But if you need one for your doctor to "see" if you have a broken bone the Church encourages their use.

 

I'm not convinced we know a whole lot about intersex people, let alone members who happen to be it. Time may well give us a better insight and recognition of the trials faced by the intersex individual.

 

You already accomplished much progress in the Church. Being a baptized faithful member guarantees you a seat at the Lords feast. Be assured the NO Righteous BLESSING will be denied to you in the hereafter.

[CV75]

So is sexual attraction to same gender and sexual attraction to opposite gender God-given or not? Is it a "natural man" defect to be sexually attracted or is a divinely imbued desire? Why do you suppose He would give that attraction in one way to one person with the defined appropriate parameters for expressing that attraction (opposite gender attraction) while giving a similar attraction to others and not give any parameter for expressing that attraction (same gender attraction).

 

Maybe we're just too close-minded to listen. Our assumptions have defined doctrine (as they have done in the past).

I see the procreative powers as God-given and a spiritual stewardship as well as a physical stewardship. Our stewardship plays out in (and both affects and is affected by) innumerable factors of the human experience including genetics, chemistry, psychology, culture, morality, choice and accountability, etc. I believe this interplay between the powers, their stewardship and the mortal human factors is where we see the innumerable varieties and strengths of sexual attraction.

 

I see the God-given parameters (the covenant of marriage) not being about sexual attraction but about the God-given powers and stewardship. I see sexual attraction as part of the mortal experience. In the pre-existence, we had no power to procreate, so the attraction between male and female spirits was limited to their basic and fundamental eternal gender identity.

[bcuzbcuz]

I don't mean to sound calloused, but so what?  "The natural man is an enemy to God, and will be forever and ever, unless he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man, and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father" (Mosiah 3:19).  Whatever genetic predispositions one has, either (1) a behavior is voluntary or (2) God will not hold someone who completely lacks free choice accountable for any actions in relation to that lack of  choice. One may not be responsible for one's genetic inheritance, but almost without exception, he is always responsible for his behavior.

 

The commandment is to put off the natural man ... period.  We all have things that make us natural men and women. For example, a sex drive is completely natural.  But that doesn't mean I'm exempt from keeping it within the bounds the Lord has set by saving its fulfillment for marriage.  Or perhaps I have what is, for all intents and purposes, a propensity to anger easily, which I inherited from my father, who inherited it from his father, and so on, and back through the ages to Adam.    I have two choices: (1) I can say, "Ah, well.  It's natural; I was born that way, and there's nothing I can do about it"; or (2) I can follow the formula outlined in the above-quoted scripture.

You began talking about SSM and then switched to something entirely different. You equated a "genetic inheritance" with a sex act. Sorry, but they aren't the same thing. Two people, of opposite sexes, can cohabitate, legally, in every country in the world. They can even get a piece of paper that declares to all interested parties that they, thereby, have certain rights, such as a security for their offspring.....if needed. They are not bound by any laws to obtain offspring, either by copulation or adoption.

What those two people do in the privacy of their home,, is their own business. And most country states do not give stipulations about what they do in their bedroom.

A "genetic inheritance" does, however, govern who one is attracted to, that go beyond the social factors of society, fashion, appearance and upbringing.

A person genetically disposed to be attracted to their same sex, should be allowed to cohabitate with the same rights as different sexed couples. What they do in the privacy of their home is not our business. They do not need to procure oppspring, but could if they so wish. If they decide to build a family, they should have the same rights as anyone else.

This issue is not about sex. That, is between them and their bishop.

[EllenMaksoud]

I get my stats from sociological studies. I don't know about any one else. That any parent(step or otherwise) would seriously consider murdering their own children speaks to serious emotional and legal issues.

 

Ultimately I think God wants us all to be Saints, whether former day or Latter-day, but he will not violate our agency. So it is we who get to choose our beliefs.

 

We're a tremendously practical people. We're not WoW absolutists. The WoW sets up basic guidelines, and we adapt them to our immediate medical needs. IE; Having an Xray isn't particularly good for you. They do lead to an increase in the potential to develop cancers. But if you need one for your doctor to "see" if you have a broken bone the Church encourages their use.

 

I'm not convinced we know a whole lot about intersex people, let alone members who happen to be it. Time may well give us a better insight and recognition of the trials faced by the intersex individual.

 

You already accomplished much progress in the Church. Being a baptized faithful member guarantees you a seat at the Lords feast. Be assured the NO Righteous BLESSING will be denied to you in the hereafter.

There is one issue. It is one that I will just live with. When I first started with the Sisters in March 2011, I was assured that the Atonement would see that all sin is forgiven. In 2014, it seems that some of the benefits of the Atonement will have to wait until the next life. Hmmm, someone changed the story.  I am sure that Heavenly Father will deal with this in his good time. Perhaps they believe that holding me back will stem the flow of other undesireables wanting admittance.

 

Interestingly, gay/ lesbian activist organizations say the incidence of homosexuality is around 10%, but of course they are the ones to benefit most by such numbers. I think that part of it is that some people just want to be promiscuous and will use anything to make that alright in their own minds.

[bcuzbcuz]

I see the procreative powers as God-given and a spiritual stewardship as well as a physical stewardship. Our stewardship plays out in (and both affects and is affected by) innumerable factors of the human experience including genetics, chemistry, psychology, culture, morality, choice and accountability, etc. I believe this interplay between the powers, their stewardship and the mortal human factors is where we see the innumerable varieties and strengths of sexual attraction.

I see the God-given parameters (the covenant of marriage) not being about sexual attraction but about the God-given powers and stewardship. I see sexual attraction as part of the mortal experience. In the pre-existence, we had no power to procreate, so the attraction between male and female spirits was limited to their basic and fundamental eternal gender identity.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying that because we were not genetically disposed to same sex attraction in the pre-existence....since there would be no such thing.....that the only fitting attraction, in the here and now, would be opposite sexes.....as thought the pre-existence and this one are somehow linked into who we are attracted to? Edited March 6, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[EllenMaksoud]

You began talking about SSM and then switched to something entirely different. You equated a "genetic inheritance" with a sex act. Sorry, but they aren't the same thing. Two people, of opposite sexes, can cohabitate, legally, in every country in the world. They can even get a piece of paper that declares to all interested parties that they, thereby, have certain rights, such as a security for their offspring.....if needed. They are not bound by any laws to obtain offspring, either by copulation or adoption.

What those two people do in the privacy of their home,, is their own business. And most country states do not give stipulations about what they do in their bedroom.

A "genetic inheritance" does, however, govern who one is attracted to, that go beyond the social factors of society, fashion, appearance and upbringing.

A person genetically disposed to be attracted to their same sex, should be allowed to cohabitate with the same rights as different sexed couples. What they do in the privacy of their home is not our business. They do not need to procure oppspring, but could if they so wish. If they decide to build a family, they should have the same rights as anyone else.

This issue is not about sex. That, is between them and their bishop.

Well, one who is intersexed confuses people because they can not say they are male or female, so from a certain point of view, they could sleep with anyone they wanted to.   For me the whole issue of penetrative intercourse is just icky. It would be nice to get a cuddle now and again though.

[Calm]

I don't mean to sound calloused, but so what? "The natural man is an enemy to God, and will be forever and ever, unless he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man, and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father" (Mosiah 3:19). Whatever genetic predispositions one has, either (1) a behavior is voluntary or (2) God will not hold someone who completely lacks free choice accountable for any actions in relation to that lack of choice. One may not be responsible for one's genetic inheritance, but almost without exception, he is always responsible for his behavior.

The commandment is to put off the natural man ... period. We all have things that make us natural men and women. For example, a sex drive is completely natural. But that doesn't mean I'm exempt from keeping it within the bounds the Lord has set by saving its fulfillment for marriage. Or perhaps I have what is, for all intents and purposes, a propensity to anger easily, which I inherited from my father, who inherited it from his father, and so on, and back through the ages to Adam. I have two choices: (1) I can say, "Ah, well. It's natural; I was born that way, and there's nothing I can do about it"; or (2) I can follow the formula outlined in the above-quoted scripture.

Agree with this. Simply because something may be genetic or instinctual does not mean we shouldn't try to control those impulses. It is claimed that men are genetically prone to be unfaithful yet God requires of them not only fidelity, but at a level that even lust is absent fron their thoughts.

However, I think it is important to learn genetic and other forms of predispositions as that can help tremendously in not only being more compassionate of someone's struggle (there is little that angers me so much as a dismissive "she just needs to use a little willpower), but just knowing the reasons why can help an individual gain more control and it can also go far in find better solutions to gaining control.

Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In retrospect, it is clear now that my stepfather should have killed me and I should have let him.

I assume you are making a statement of absurdity.

If you had died, those sister missionaries would have been robbed of a beautiful experience as well as all your current fellow members.

[pogi]

The GA seems well aquainted with gays and lesbians, but intersex folk just apparently leave them scratching their heads.

 

What ever happens to my progression in the church, I am completely assured that Heavenly Father knows and his will is going to be accomplished.

 

Perhaps they believe that holding me back will stem the flow of other undesireables wanting admittance.

 

I am sorry, I don't mean to pry, but are you saying that the church is holding you back because you are intersex, or because of an actual sin?  You claim not to have any SSA (whatever that means for intersex people) and think that intercourse is "icky", so I am left scratching my head what the problem is. 

 

If it is a sin that is keeping you out of the temple, you don't need to divulge the sin, but if it is simply the fact that you are intersex, I would like to know about that. 

Edited March 6, 2014 by pogi

[Calm]

There is one issue. It is one that I will just live with. When I first started with the Sisters in March 2011, I was assured that the Atonement would see that all sin is forgiven. In 2014, it seems that some of the benefits of the Atonement will have to wait until the next life. Hmmm, someone changed the story.  I am sure that Heavenly Father will deal with this in his good time. Perhaps they believe that holding me back will stem the flow of other undesireables wanting admittance.

 

Interestingly, gay/ lesbian activist organizations say the incidence of homosexuality is around 10%, but of course they are the ones to benefit most by such numbers. I think that part of it is that some people just want to be promiscuous and will use anything to make that alright in their own minds.

Some benefits of the Atonement will have to wait for everyone until the next life as some can't coexist with mortal beings. For example the promise to become totally one with God and inherit all that he has must wait. For a more specific delay, someone may have completely repented of drug or alcohol use but any physical damage will most likely not be healed until the next life. Commitment to covenants doesnt restore damaged brain cells.

As to the variations of measures of SSA, it depends a great deal on what the researchers define as SSA. The higher numbers may include those who have had some sort of homosexual experience even if it is not a consistent pattern in one's life, such as a teenage one time experiment. Lower numbers usually require multiple indications of attraction and behaviour.

[EllenMaksoud]

I assume you are making a statement of absurdity.

If you had died, those sister missionaries would have been robbed of a beautiful experience as well as all your current fellow members.

I am sorry. It was a rash statement. It just gets hard sometimes because at times it feels like every day is an intellectual battle against prejudice and willful ignorance and I am not even an intellectual. I have church people encouraging me toward spiritual strength and a devout life, then I have Psych folks discussing whether I am Borderline Personality or Bipolar 2, and then there is a Doctor that says that behaviors similar to both disorders can be a product of extreme abuse, and are consequences, not a disorder. The best I can do is to go on and rely on Heavenly Father and do what feels right.

 

I uttered that epith in a moment of weakness and frustration and will try not to do it again.

[Calm]

I am sorry, I don't mean to pry, but you are saying that the church is holding you back because you are intersex, or because of an actual sin?  You claim not to have any SSA (whatever that means for intersex people) and think that intercourse is "icky", so I am left scratching my head what the problem is. 

 

If it is a sin that is keeping you out of the temple, you don't need to divulge the sin, but if it is simply the fact that you are intersex, I would like to know about that.

See here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62688-saving-lives/

[Calm]

I am sorry. It was a rash statement. It just gets hard sometimes because at times it feels like every day is an intellectual battle against prejudice and willful ignorance and I am not even an intellectual. I have church people encouraging me toward spiritual strength and a devout life, then I have Psych folks discussing whether I am Borderline Personality or Bipolar 2, and then there is a Doctor that says that behaviors similar to both disorders can be a product of extreme abuse, and are consequences, not a disorder. The best I can do is to go on and rely on Heavenly Father and do what feels right.

 

I uttered that epith in a moment of weakness and frustration and will try not to do it again.

I understand. I hope things get better for you soon and it becomes less confusing and less of feeling you are being pulled every which way.

[Calm]

You began talking about SSM and then switched to something entirely different. You equated a "genetic inheritance" with a sex act. Sorry, but they aren't the same thing.

I don't read Ken as talking about SSM at all, but rather responding to one comment in the opening post that is often used as a reason to not view same sex behaviour (as opposed to attraction) as a sin:

"what if the science eventually proves this whole business is genetic and by definition not voluntary?"

Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

 

 

I am sorry, I don't mean to pry, but are you saying that the church is holding you back because you are intersex, or because of an actual sin?  You claim not to have any SSA (whatever that means for intersex people) and think that intercourse is "icky", so I am left scratching my head what the problem is. 

 

If it is a sin that is keeping you out of the temple, you don't need to divulge the sin, but if it is simply the fact that you are intersex, I would like to know about that. 

 

They have been silent since my Baptism in January of 2012.  Apparently some think there was a voluntary gender change. This is a really convoluted issue and the frustrating part is that no one qualified to understand the situation has talked to me. None of the people involved actually understand the medical/genetic/psychological issues involved. AND, I think I could survive without the Temple if well meaning people would just shut up about it. I've never been completely accepted any place in life, so I'm accustomed to that.

 

It makes me feel crazy at times, and frightening because I do not know where it will end.  I am hoping that some day, members of the GA will sit down with geneticists from that medical lab 1/2 mile from the Temple and talk about these things, if they have any.  I was just at a meeting with tree genetic doctors at OHSU and they understood the issues very well.

 

It is confusing because at the point, several times, when I just wanted to give up and walk away, over a dozen (12+) people have told me that I am a bridge, a pioneer, a ground breaker. So abandoning all common sense, I just keep going. I am not trying to alter the morality of the church.

[canard78]

I see the procreative powers as God-given and a spiritual stewardship as well as a physical stewardship. Our stewardship plays out in (and both affects and is affected by) innumerable factors of the human experience including genetics, chemistry, psychology, culture, morality, choice and accountability, etc. I believe this interplay between the powers, their stewardship and the mortal human factors is where we see the innumerable varieties and strengths of sexual attraction.

 

I see the God-given parameters (the covenant of marriage) not being about sexual attraction but about the God-given powers and stewardship. I see sexual attraction as part of the mortal experience. In the pre-existence, we had no power to procreate, so the attraction between male and female spirits was limited to their basic and fundamental eternal gender identity.

 

And if a straight couple get married who are infertile? Or an older couple who aren't even sealed for eternity. I have close friends in both situations. A woman remarried after her first husband (sealed to) passed. She can't be sealed to the her second husband (a member who hadn't previously married).

 

Is their sex, non-procreative, in any way sinful? How is their "until death do us part" relationship any different from what a gay couple couple celebrate? 

[CV75]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying that because we were not genetically disposed to same sex attraction in the pre-existence....since there would be no such thing.....that the only fitting attraction, in the here and now, would be opposite sexes.....as thought the pre-existence and this one are somehow linked into who we are attracted to?

No, I think I am saying the opposite. I am saying that our procreative powers are God-given, and that the varied expressions of sexual attraction we find in mortality are not.

 

I am also saying that the many interacting factors impacting sexual attraction in mortality are far more complicated than the eternal gender characteristics that contribute to relationships between spirits in the pre-mortal life. Without procreative power and physical mortal conditions, the attraction between male and female spirits is governed only spiritually (e.g. the law of opposition).

 

I’ll add that I believe our gender characteristics are God-given in the sense that they are essential aspects of our eternal identity. But even these, in mortality, can be as impacted by the same factors that impact sexual attraction.

 

So generally, I think the pre-mortal gender attraction between male and female spirits plays out in mortality as "hetero-" sexual attraction, but there is no guarantee that it will, due to the vicissitudes of the fallen mortal world. There are many kinds and strengths of sexual attraction possible in mortality due to a probation amidst so many other factors affecting our sexuality and procreative capacity than just our eternal and opposing male or female gender characteristics.

[CV75]

And if a straight couple get married who are infertile? Or an older couple who aren't even sealed for eternity. I have close friends in both situations. A woman remarried after her first husband (sealed to) passed. She can't be sealed to the her second husband (a member who hadn't previously married).

 

Is their sex, non-procreative, in any way sinful? How is their "until death do us part" relationship any different from what a gay couple couple celebrate? 

Homosexual behavior is a sin simply because it is an abuse of the stewardship we have over our God-given procreative powers. The stewardship is that we reserve sexual relations for marriage between a man and a woman, so anything else, however celebratory, is an abuse.

 

Homosexual attraction is not always homosexual behavior, and homosexual attraction is not part of one's eternal identity as evidenced by there being  no sexual powers to steward by the marriage covenant in the pre-existence.

[california boy]

Homosexual behavior is a sin simply because it is an abuse of the stewardship we have over our God-given procreative powers. The stewardship is that we reserve sexual relations for marriage between a man and a woman, so anything else, however celebratory, is an abuse.

 

Homosexual attraction is not always homosexual behavior, and homosexual attraction is not part of one's eternal identity as evidenced by there being  no sexual powers to steward by the marriage covenant in the pre-existence.

Do you think we abuse our stewardship of our sexual powers when we have sex and artificially prevent procreation to take place? If not, then how is our stewardship of our sexual powers any different between an opposite sex couple that artifically prevents having any children and a same sex couple having sex without having children?

 

Would celibacy and living alone for the rest of one's life be required of all straight people that never intend to have children?

 

Or am I reading everything you are saying wrong.  I just can't seem to fit your statements together with what is expected of a homosexual without simply denying the same expectations of being able to share a life with someone they love simply because they are gay.

[LittleNipper]

I believe that sin is sin is sin. One doesn't foster a wholesome environment by dumping acid and heavy metal into the soil and water. How can anyone expect to nourish a wholesome society if one promotes and sanctions behavior that is nonproductive? I can put my arm around the "gay" guy and point him towards the light. I can also shake the "gay" guy and tell him that he is headed towards disaster. I cannot condone the "gay" guy's actions no matter how harsh it might seem to people --- who simply do not see the broader picture and how it will ultimately influence society and further weaken both marriage and a correct view of God's saving grace. 

 

God wants us to be joyous in this life, that doesn't mean one is always happy in this life. But I can say that many people today are not happy or joyous no matter what they get, because their lives are empty and without purpose ------ yet filled with everything they ever wanted.

[3DOP]

I believe that sin is sin is sin. One doesn't foster a wholesome environment by dumping acid and heavy metal into the soil and water. How can anyone expect to nourish a wholesome society if one promotes and sanctions behavior that is nonproductive? I can put my arm around the "gay" guy and point him towards the light. I can also shake the "gay" guy and tell him that he is headed towards disaster. I cannot condone the "gay" guy's actions no matter how harsh it might seem to people --- who simply do not see the broader picture and how it will ultimately influence society and further weaken both marriage and a correct view of God's saving grace. 

 

God wants us to be joyous in this life, that doesn't mean one is always happy in this life. But I can say that many people today are not happy or joyous no matter what they get, because their lives are empty and without purpose ------ yet filled with everything they ever wanted.

 

I liked your post LittleNipper, especially the last paragraph, and welcome to the board.

 

I think you might need to clarify "productive". Economic productivity? Biological productivity? I don't think non-productivity, as I would understand it, spiritually, is enough to merit the censure of the state and only mild censure from religious authority, perhaps for failing to "redeem the time". According to Catholic tradition, the homosexual act is a sin that is more than merely unproductive. It harms everyone and as such, is one of four sins that "cries to heaven for vengeance."      

 

Also, many Christians disagree with the premise that society is harmed by behaviors, even if they are prepared to admit that they are sinful behaviors, when they are ordinarily practised in private. I hold, as you apparently do, that the community is effected negatively by sin in its members, but your apparent position is not popular, even among those with conservative moral values. Many social sins are illegal and correctly so. A usual characteristic of illegal sins is that the harm they do to society is directed at a specific individual or group. But people like me, and possibly you, if we would be "productive", need to be prepared to establish why we think private sins are harmful to society as a whole, and even more so if we would go the next step to invoke the powers of the state to make them illegal.

 

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.”

 

Here we have another case in point for cultural conditioning. It is far more difficult for our contraceptive culture to see how contrary to nature homosexuality is. Those of us who instinctively feel its deep unnaturalness rightly react to homosexual activity with disgust, but logical arguments are unlikely to produce the same reaction in those whose instincts are damaged, blunted or rationalized away.

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

 

By no means do I endorse this website. I have never looked at it before. But it gives a pretty good overview of why this particular sin is one of the four social sins that the Catholic Church takes most seriously. It seems much more difficult to make the argument, if one accepts the view that human reproductive activity may be legitimately indulged solely for the pleasure it provides. If by chance, you are inclined to make the argument against artificial contraception here you are welcome. Because of where the contraceptive mentality leads logically, (the sanctioning of homosexual unions) I am more than convinced of the wisdom of Paul VI, in his encyclical Humane Vitae, explaining why the Church could not permit artificial contraception. I could provide cheerleading to someone else. But I am not inclined to invoke the reasoning of Catholic authorities that Mormons don't even accept. Shoot. Its nearly impossible to speak to Catholics about this subject! My comments now are without much hope of persuading anyone here except maybe a lurker, but rather, for the sake of full disclosure, to share the burden of an unpopular point of view.    

 

Rory

Edited March 6, 2014 by 3DOP

[Ran]

Well, I am not Catholic so do not know much about the Pope. I tried to copy a link to the CNN "Belief" story about the latest action of the Pope. It seems he is mulling over Same Sex Unions, and has taken a new stand on Women in the Church, saying that they should be present when decisions are made. The article does not say if we can talk, but we have to be there. Hmmmm Is this progress.

 

This thing about SSM bothers me; conflicts me because on one level they are wrong, but on another level, what if the science eventually proves this whole business is genetic and by definition not voluntary? Good heavens, this whole thing has me sitting in the corner dithering.

 

Here's the pertinent text from the Pope's interview. 

 

"Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

 

"'Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety'."

 

"Transcript: Pope Francis' March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera,"(English translation)

Catholic News Agency/Eternal Word Television Network, Mar 5, 2014

 

 

Molti Paesi regolano le unioni civili. È una strada che la Chiesa può comprendere? Ma fino a che punto?

 

«Il matrimonio è fra un uomo e una donna. Gli Stati laici vogliono giustificare le unioni civili per regolare diverse situazioni di convivenza, spinti dall’esigenza di regolare aspetti economici fra le persone, come ad esempio assicurare l’assistenza sanitaria. Si tratta di patti di convivenza di varia natura, di cui non saprei elencare le diverse forme. Bisogna vedere i diversi casi e valutarli nella loro varietà». 

 

«Benedetto XVI non è una statua Partecipa alla vita della Chiesa»,

Corriere della Sera, 5 marzo 2014