Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Gordon]

This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.

[Leonard James]

That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.

His opinion is quite irrelevant. What sort of sexual activity a couple indulges in is entirely their own business, providing it harms nobody else.

[Stranger]

This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

Utter drivel.

[floo]

I believe it can. It isn't easy to explain, but the Catholic church has quite thorough teaching on it which I will post some links to, if you have the time to read them.

Considering the Catholic church has encouraged child abuse by protecting paedophile priests, and treated unmarried mothers in a shameful way, I don't think what they have to say on any topic has an credence.

[floo]

This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

Absolute GARBAGE!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Considering the Catholic church has encouraged child abuse by protecting paedophile priests, and treated unmarried mothers in a shameful way, I don't think what they have to say on any topic has an credence.

Aye!! And there in lies the problem, instead of telling homosexuals they are sinners they should look to themselves, fix themselves before they start pontificating about others, I am not talking about ordinary everyday Catholics but the hierarchy.

Matthew 7.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

I find this stuff from the Pope embarrassing to read.   You can see the contortions that have to be gone through, in order to permit sex with no kids for some people, while ruling out sex with no kids for others.  How anyone intelligent can live their life according to these ideas, baffles me.   It's also incredibly pompous.   

[Shaker]

That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.

Or as Bernard Shaw put it: "If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't."

[Rhiannon]

I find this stuff from the Pope embarrassing to read.   You can see the contortions that have to be gone through, in order to permit sex with no kids for some people, while ruling out sex with no kids for others.  How anyone intelligent can live their life according to these ideas, baffles me.   It's also incredibly pompous.

I think it makes people feel special, Wiggs.

[Brownie]

That Pope died thirty eight years ago, I doubt any Pope would say that sort of stuff now.  It wasn't a dogma at the time.  Spud, I never guessed you were a Catholic, would never have guessed in a million years.  I had you down as an extreme fundamentalist Protestant.  Ah well, you may be an extreme fundamentalist Catholic I suppose, they do exist on the fringes of the Church, usually members of a particular sect.   Mel Gibson is a good example of one, in theory if not practice, as is his father.

[Owlswing]

Dear Floo,

Aye!! And there in lies the problem, instead of telling homosexuals they are sinners they should look to themselves, fix themselves before they start pontificating about others, I am not talking about ordinary everyday Catholics but the hierarchy.

Matthew 7.

Gonnagle.

Of course this is why the Catholic clergy feel there is no need  for contraception/condoms - choirboys don't get pregnant.

[Brownie]

There could be transgendered choir boys....you wouldn't necessarily know.
Anyway choir masters are in charge of choir boys, or girls come to that.  Or choir mistresses I suppose.  Not clergy.

The choir master in charge of choir boys and girls at my old church left his wife [who was a choir (adult) soloist], and family and went off with a woman who played the organ sometimes.  That is apropos of nothing.  Strictly a heterosexual business.

[horsethorn]

This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

"For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse."

So if the 'natural adaptation' of sex is the 'expression and strengthening of the union', and that 'new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse', in what way does this *not* also apply to same sex relationships?

ht

[Brownie]

He doesn't actually say it doesn't, Horsethorn.  He was merely speaking of heterosexual relationships on that occasion.  Anyway he's long since dead, the new one might say something different if asked.

[wigginhall]

The present pope does sound more sympathetic to gays, but the acid test would be if the description of gays as 'objectively disordered' were to be changed.   I seriously doubt that this will happen.

Quote, 'there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.'  (Amoris Laetitia). 

Same old, same old.

[Brownie]

I think he might change the ''disordered'', it  was never a dogmatic statement.  Dunno about the rest, "analogous" and all that .  He could say it is something different to the usual set up and in the light of the findings of recent medical, scientific and psychological research the Church's attitude will be modified.  There you are, I've written his script!

There's some controversy over comments made by the Pope on the subject of divorced people and those in irregular relationships, by which I assume he means people living together, perhaps having been divorced or separated...maybe more?  Sounds good to me but a few traditionalists have been shaking their heads.

[Spud]

"For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse."

So if the 'natural adaptation' of sex is the 'expression and strengthening of the union', and that 'new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse', in what way does this *not* also apply to same sex relationships?

ht

He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex.  A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

[Gordon]

A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

Says this guy, but it is just his opinion and it isn't a binding one - other opinions are available.

[Brownie]

Spud said:  But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

In your opinion Spud - I concede, not just your opinion but opinion nonetheless.  We don't know the Pope's opinion because he was only talking about man-woman relationships; as I said before, that pope is long since dead so it hardly matters now.

[Shaker]

He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex.  A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves

No they're not.

[Owlswing]

He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex.  A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

Spud

You are living (presumably), breathing (again presumably), proof of all that is wrong, all that is negative, all that is unpleasant, in religious belief!

If it were left to you to sell Christianity it would be doomed to extinction and, in the form which you sell, the sooner the better.

[Leonard James]

A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

Immoral? By what standards are they immoral? Immorality, in most people's book is harming others or the environment. Or tarnishing sombebody's love for another by calling it immoral.

[floo]

He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex.  A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.

What is immoral about homosexuality? That is a highly unpleasant comment with no evidence to support it. The not so good book isn't evidence.

[Hope]

Quote, 'there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.'  (Amoris Laetitia).

In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.  After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement. 

Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not.  That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.

[Shaker]

In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.

I knew it wouldn't be long.