Please can someone settle a 'Catholic' argument/query for me?

[yorkshirelass79]

Message withdrawn

as lapsed catholic with residual affection for the church am loving this thread.
Kittylette, imo there are no easy answers and life as a committed catholic (I'm related to many) is a hard path of searching for truth and self discovery and never ceases to be challenging and difficult but there seems to be ( in my committed relatives) great joy and reward in that can come out of a devout Catholic life.
It's not for all of us though, and I would hope that I would not judge anyone for what they do, I like the idea of everyone tending to their own moral business as far as possible. Practice not preaching works best for me.
I do however have a problem with an institution of this size being run by celibate men. But that is just my opinion and I hope I haven't offended too many people by saying that.

I find my religeon a comfortable way to express my faith. In reality therefore, i 'break the rules of the club' but it doesn't matter to me becuase i make a distiction between my faith and my religeon. My religeon is a way of expressing my faith.

Hi Kitty, I hope you are feeling better today.

It seems to me you are feeling a bit guilty, which is OK becasue we all do from time to time, nobody adheres to all the rules, all the time. But a lot of what you say- esp being bisexual and not acting on it - seems to follow the prescribed path for Catholics. Youa re getting amrried in November yes? (Congratulations). It seems to me then, that if you ask God for forgiveness, you will be given it. The piece of apper might be lacking, but that's being rememdied and your beliefs in Marriage- the children you love, your love of your partner- are far moreintact than many a married religious person I know. The whole point of God, after all- God is forgiveness.

Now I am not a Catholic, and never could be. I'm really just starting to rediscover my Faith after a long time running from it. The answers I am slowly gaining are of the importane of the teacjings of Jesus, and taking faith from them. If what you do on thie earth is motivated by love and with notitntention of causing harm, you won't go far wrong imo.

Also re the marriage- the benefits of marriage for religion and catholicism are clear; its largely stable (I say alrgely, clearly its not always ), its for raising children of known genetic origin within your faith- you are doing all that.

AFAIK the gospels say sod-all about homosexuality or contraception. Yet the supposedly Christian churches are very hung up on the matter. The Roman Catholic church got it's knickers in a twist about celibacy and sexuality when it was competing for power with the Celtic church which was much more tolerant. I see the concentration on sexual morality as a result of the politics of the time when the church was becoming established rather than stemming from the teachings of Jesus. AFAIK his only teaching on sex was not to cast the first stone against the woman taken in adultery. Which suggests he was far less bothered about it than about loving God.

Edam, I agree the gospels are not eloquent on the subject apart from the very eloquent "judge not yet ye be judged". The more dogmatic elements of orthodox Roman Catholicism come from St Paul and the parts of the New Testament that come after the gospels - where the gospels were put into practice by the early Christian communities. I think St Paul was explicitly against homosexuality, someone out there must know the texts better than me. But he was also responding to the Roman and Greek establishments at the time which were relatively hedonistic in their sexuality.
Also the Old Testament is explicit about homosexuality I think in Leviticus.
But my argument would be - there is loads of stuff in the New and Old Testament that we have dropped for cultural reasons. I mean I think St Paul said women should sit apart from men during worship and cover their heads - also all the food prohibiions of the Old Testament.

sorry, I meant judge not LEST ye be judged.

Yes, Jesus does say very little about sex. But religion is mad about it. I no longer am a part of any organised religion and it's in part b/c of this and similar issues. I used to be a liberal Anglican but in the end I decided it was hypocritical of me to subscribe to an organisation that is still openly anti-gay. Just b/c my corner of it wasn't, that didn't mean that the organisation as a whole wasn't doing huge damage presecuting gay people in Jesus' name. I do think that if you belong to an organised religion you have to accept all of it - you can't just pick and choose.

The problem is that once a religion tries to set a code for personal morality, people decide to take it upon themselves to enforce it. It becomes obsessional. And you end up with a situation where so long as you are morally 'pure' it doesn't matter what your business dealings are or how little you do to help the disadvantaged.

Kitty, I really wouldn't worry. God made you who you are. You have made a committment to a life partner and have a lovely family. Enjoy.

He WAS far les botherd Edam. ther are a few Old testament quotes (levicticus mainly- like all the complicated rules) that appear to many to deal with Homsexuality. But you have tor ead that in the context that Judaism- which after all rather adores Levicticus- takes breeding huge numbers of jews verys eriosuly indeed (And so it was to be, that after the waters receded, Noah commanded all
the animals to "Go forth and multiply"). Homsexuality prevents against that doesn't it? Also, homosexuality (rather bisexuality) was practised widely by the Romans which would lead me to suspect a link in there too.

My close friend at Uni is a devout christian, and gay, he has been forced out of the Christian Union by the comments of its members that he is going to Hell. I would love to have a debate with her on why someone who acts with love is less likely to be doomed than someone who acts out of a biased, judgemental desire to exclude poeple froma religion that is realy supposed to be all-loving.

Leviticus was written at a time when the number of Jews was probably no more than a few hundred. You can see why it wasn't agood idea to have same-sex couples. And Romans were allowed to force their slaves into homosexual relationships. So Paul wasn't surrounded by monogomous loving gay relationships like we see today.

I also think it's interesting that some of the biggest judges of other people's sexuality can end up perpetrating the vilest sexual abuse - witness the many American evangelical preachers who end up in sorded sexual scandals. Also the Roman Catholic church's horrific history of clerical abuse of children (and women which is less known about).
There is a real problem with a celibate male priesthood - you could argue that God might be trying to tell the Church something - maybe to shift a bit and become more compassionate? I mean the male gender is not the gender anyone would choose for successful celibacy is it?!

St Paul- ah yes, plenty of debate on HIM!

Paul was a convert, someone who carried arond (imo) a burden of guilt. he spent his earlier life persecuting the very poeple he saw fit to lead after conversion.
Also, amny of his wirtings are pretty much certainly not really his according to Theologians. I know this, I dropepd a grade by quoting parts that had beena ccepted as written elsewhere ( damn!).

Paul wroyte at a time when the Chyrches were fighting battles on many fronts, against Judaism; the Gnostics; Romans and persecution. The HAd to multiply to survice. His own colleagues were getting restless as tehe desciples of christ were dying but Jesus ahdn't come back- they really expected it wuithin their lifetime. He had a terrible job, to hold it all togerth (though not alone, there were others- james for example who did write a Gospel (link{http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Nag_Hammadi/gospel_of_james.htm\here} but that was excluded.

I really believe that study of the Faith needs to include a study of the other Gospels- thsoe of Thomas, james and the Gnostics. For me, that brought far greater understanding. The Bible IS just the selected Gospels, ina time where it ws trying to distance itself as a separate from Gnosticism (which does ahave a few weird ideas). Taht doesn't mean the Gospels of Thomas ectc are devoid of Truth. My lecturer (A Professor widely respected) agrees mwith me on this, he accepts the Gospel of Thomas as original.

Peachyclair, the Jesus Seminar accept the Gospel of Thomas as genuine too. Have you looked at any of their work and conclusions? Fascinating, and the closest I believe I can get to understanding what jesus really said and what others say for him It's confirmed for me a lot of why I can no longer be a part of conventional Christianity, but also makes Jesus a whole lot more interesting.

As for Paul, there is so much debate about what he wrote and what he didn't. Even letters which are his are thought to have been doctored.

Yes, many of the letters are aceepted to be from elsewhere now aren't they?

haven't looked at the Jesus Seminar, will though thanks .

For me, Faith si the realissation that Jesus is love. I annoy poeple in RL because I really try ahrd to be non judgemental, (I fail, son't we always?) but to me that is Christianity. The fact that ds1 was born 3 months before we married means zilch. I mean, if Jeuss accepted Mary Magdelene- what does 3 months matter?

For me personally, finding Him is central to FAith, not finding some doctrines written yers after the event. For some epople these are inextricably interlinked which is fine, not for all though. There isn't a right and wrong (as long as you ractise love, if you don't that's it asaics) there is only a personal relationship.

Oh yes, I know Leviticus and St Paul had things to say. But surely for Christians the word of Christ is paramount? I'm not a theologian, merely someone brought up CofE and now thinking about returning to the church. But I did study the synoptic gospels (and John) for RS O level. And the very strong message I saw there was of a loving God who preached against people who set themselves up as holier-than-thou (the Pharisees and the authorities in the Temple, for instance).

And said 'judge not lest ye be judged'...

Edam, I think yur interp[retation, for me, is exactly right.

Thank you, Peachy! Only an ignorant sinner, though.

Kitty I was thinking today that there is a strand of Catholic thinking that says that marriage is a sacrament that a couple give to EACH OTHER, and the church's marriage ceremony is really only recognising the sacrament that is already there in your relationship.

Perhaps you might like to think about this model of marriage, in which case you could consider yourselves already "marriage" in a sacramental sense, but just waiting for the church to put it's seal of approval on that marraige which you have already give each other?

MP has a point- its not that long ago (think tess of the D'urbervilles) that a couple who has shared intercourse were considered married anyway.

I was born and raised as a Catholic.

I find many of the Catholic churches ways archaic and can't fit my life and beliefs around their teachings.

I still have my God, the same one as I had when I attended mass on a regular basis.

He still loves me as I love Him, but I live my life as I choose, and not as an old man in the Vatican thinks I should.

The Catholic church is responsible for some terrible things which still happen today. I am happy with my God in my home and don't need to go to church to find Him.

Going on what you've said Kitty, perhaps you should think about your own beliefs and compare them to what your chosen religion expects of you.

Whatever you do Kitty, your God will stand by you you, but your church may not.

Message withdrawn

Morningpaper has a point. Marriage was not an "original" sacrament far from it. It evolved because the local priest was typically th only person who could read and write, and so at first all marriages were in effect registry-office wedding unless you were important enough to pay for a service.

Marriage exists in the Bible of course, but in a variety of forms that do not coincide with what is now called God's law. Polygamy seems to have been a right & duty of rich men (though of course women were chattels, whose only right in the Commandments was not to be stolen).