Ah yes, scandal. Church must try to avoid that shouldn't it? Okinrus, if someone is openly homosexual, the church does refuse them communion, whether they are defiant or not. It's happened many times here in Australia and the ensuing scandal was quite nasty. They didn't just refuse to give known homosexuals communion, I remember in one case they refused to give the mother of one of the homosexuals communion because she was in support of her son. But then as one of the supporters of homosexual rights, it seems she also may not qualify:
There is no obligation here to refuse homosexuals or even those who commit homosexual act. This refusal is for those who publicly support and continue to support issues in gross contrast to the Church.
Support? So by merely tolerating it, you could be seen to be showing support. I'm still laughing at the 'sodomite' comment as well in that article. But then again I guess Archbishop Pell, now Cardinal Pell, should really uphold the Catholic bretheren, seeing how supportive he has been in the past of priests convicted of child sexual abuse. Hell he has been accused himself. But hey, he can take and give communion. How's that for amazingly sick. But then I guess that God doesn't say that one must not be a peadophile.
Your changing the issue. Priests aren't supposed to participate in another's sin. To allow someone, for whom they have knowledge, to commit sacriledge is to participate in sacriledge. Now, sometimes in rare cases it's obvious. That is to say, if you went to communion with "support sodomy" written on your shirt, you could be refused. But in other cases,for instance, when a politicion publicly supports abortion, the Archbishop may punish him or her, and his or her repentence will require a public disapproval of abortion.
You believe a lot of things don't you? Even with the plethora of scientific evidence pointing to the contrary to your belief, you still believe. You do realise that the world had stopped seeing homosexuality as being a mental illness that needed treatment since around 30 years or so ago, don't you? Or do you just fail to keep up with things okinrus? You do realise that it was society's prejudices which classified homosexuality as a mental illness in the first place, don't you okinrus? One cannot be cured from being a homosexual, just as one can't be cured of being a heterosexual. There is no treatment because it's not an illness.
Bells, I do not believe homosexuality is the natural state of affairs. I believe it is not what God wants for his creation, but is here because Adam's sin. So I have two choices. Either an individual chooses to be attracted to the same sex or an individual does not. If an individual does not, then where is attraction's origin? Is it not in their mind so to speak?
Abnormal how? Because it doesn't fit in with what your holy book says? It exists everywhere in the animal kingdom okinrus. Hardly abnormal.
Because Adam's sin affected all of creation, it follows that animals are affected too. Moreso, I believe you'd be able to find animals suffering from all sorts of mental illnesses.
Un-natural for you, but not for a homosexual. I'm sure you feel a certain attraction to your Bible. I find that un-natural, but I'm sure you wouldn't. You seem to be jumping back and forth with the mortal sin part too okinrus. First it's a mortal sin to partake in homosexual activity, but now you're saying it's not a mortal sin to be a homosexual.
Yes, to have merely the attraction to the same-sex is not a sin. To lust or to commit homosexual acts is. Also don't confuse by what I mean by mortal sin. That doesn't mean someone doing such has committed a mortal sin. There are a number of conditions such as knowledge that are required to be present if the sin is mortal.
Hell, I must be committing so many mortal sins, I must have a seat reserved in hell since I have committed the mortal sin of sex before marriage.
Again, you'd have know your committing mortal sins. Your conscious, I mean.
I wonder if the baby I am now carrying also going to burn in hell for being the product of so much sin.
No, why?
I'd classify a priest defiling a small child as being a greater sin than any homosexual or person having sex before marriage could ever do. But then I guess that's just me.
I would too.
Condoms ensure not only a safe means of protection against STD's, it also provides protection against pregnancy. The introduction of contraception has ensured that people aren't lumped with children they never want and condoms has also ensured that diseases don't spread as well. You wish to see the effects of no condoms? Do some research into the spread of AIDS in Africa, in light of the Catholic church threatening to pull back aid if the governments and aid organisations teach the people about the use of condoms and also give out condoms. AIDS has become a pandemic in Africa okinrus, and just think how much the numbers of new cases would go down if the use of condoms were widely taught in the communities, and more importantly, if they were readily available.
What I'm telling you is that just because an individual may prevent an STD, the commulative affect on society might not be good. For instance, an aggressive compaign for birth control might increase the rate of extra-marital sex, which might lead to more non-monogamous relationships. Because the introduction of condoms have led to more premarital sex, teenagers face more social acceptance and peer pressure.
Now along time ago Scipio, as related by St. Augustine, posed this argument. He said this. Rome was going to destroy Carthage, eliminating their only real enemy. But if so destroyed, Carthage would no longer be a "thorn in their side". Rome's morality, once great, now would now deteriorated. Of course, Rome did destroyed Carthage, and this, I should think, caused Rome trouble.
What I said before was based by TV. But when I said I didn't have statistics, what I meant was that I had not looked for them. Here's <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CONTRA.TXT">link</a>.
You may think it's a waste of tax payer dollar to teach kids how to use a condom, but just think how much more your tax payer dollars are being used when those very dollars have to be put to teenage pregnancy classes for teenage mothers and also to treat the increasing number of teenagers with STD's and AIDS. Hmmm lets see now, the money could be put to preventing teenage pregnancies, STD's and AIDS, or it could be put to treating these teenagers for the very things it could have prevented with just one class.
Bells, I'm not concerned when my tax money goes to a good cause. But contraceptives is not a good cause. About half of all abortions are from those using contraceptions. It doesn't look like contraceptions are working.
duendy, this view stiffles medical research. But I do not say forced medical treatment. After all, you can find many groups who medical research was administered improperly. But nowdays, even depression is called a medical illness, and even in some cases, it is. So your acting like this is some very bad thing when it's not. Furthermore, many homosexuals, I should think, do not want to remain homosexuals. Research on this area might help them.
