/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>631627

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/fr-martin-does-not-actually-say

>The simplest explanation, I suggest, is that this is Fr. James Martin’s attitude. He will not preach directly against certain of the Church’s teachings. But will he affirm them as true? Let me give him the last word. Last week I emailed Fr. Martin (who, by the way, is an exceptionally prompt and courteous correspondent) to put the following question: “My impression is that you accept Church teaching against gay sex and women’s ordination, but that you think these teachings could change in the future. Is that fair?”

>First Things readers are perceptive enough that I needn’t say what Fr. Martin’s reply does and does not answer:

>Building a Bridge does not challenge any church teaching. Otherwise, it would not have received the formal ecclesial approval (Imprimi Potest) of my Jesuit superiors; nor would it have received the endorsement of two cardinals, including one Vatican official, and several bishops. For that matter, I don't challenge any church teaching either. Nor will I. The book intentionally does not address questions of sexual morality, since I wanted to focus on areas of possible commonality between the institutional church and LGBT Catholics. Why does a book encouraging “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” as the Catechism asks, have to be seen only through the lens of sex? Not everything has to be about sex.

I know that his is going to be like throwing a wet log on the fire, but Martin has never been *that* bad. I don't really know if it's to do with his "teasing" hardliners with being vague, or if that vagueness is just worldly press trying the make him look like a progressive like they are, the same way they do with the Holy Father.

He also writes a lot on stuff like upholding clerical celibacy and being opposed to female ordinations. Plus his books (especially Jesus: A Pilgimage) are pretty good. He's not Benedict XVI, but he does know what he is talking about.

>lust is a sin

>lust is inordinate sexual desire

>any sexual desire toward the same sex is inordinate

>homosexuality is sexual desire toward the same sex

>homosexuality is not a sin

Someone walk me through this.

>>631692

The difference between pure lust and homosexuality is that homosexuality is a disorder. It's a handicapped state of existence whereby, for whatever reason, the individual suffers from a confused attachment to their own kind instead of the natural inclination to the opposite sex.

Given this, such a condition only becomes a sin when acted upon, because until then, it's just either dormant, or tempting the individual, and if you refuse to give in to temptation, then you can't be said to be sinning. In this way it becomes your cross.

By the same token, someone who suffers from nymphomania, another sexual disorder, but who refuses to give in to their temptations, cannot be said to sin.

faggots are an abomination and should cut their balls off like i did so they repent from sin, matthew 19:12 matthew 18:8 matthew 5:29-30

all you easily offended cucks and faggots can sin all you want, you're all going to hell

>>631721

yes

and this place is a cancerous shithole anyways with so much censorship its nothing but an echo chamber to the socially aproved believes that dont offend the faggot power tripping god-complex admins

>>631686

>I know that his is going to be like throwing a wet log on the fire, but Martin has never been *that* bad.

He is really bad. He's your typical wishy washy ambiguous modernist. A double forked tongue saying different things.

>>631731

here*

>>631707

Bruh, they're sinners, but look at how you speak too, do you think God is going to allow people like you in his Kingdom? God doesn't want hateful people in his domain.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

>>631627

Took him long enough.. How did he write a book about homosexuality and never at any point in the book mention that homosexual acts are wrong? The reality is at best he says 'The church teaches X' (long after it should have come up). He doesn't say "X is right" or "the church is right to teach X". He says "The church teaches X and I will never formally teach against X". The unspoken reason is "if I taught against X I would be cast out of the church and would no longer be able to use my position of influence and authority to spread doubt about key Catholic teachings".

>>631725

>yes

Get out of /r9k/ and into /christian/ because that places is terrible and it shows in your negative response that follows.

>so much censorship

>echo chamber

>dont offend the faggot power tripping god-complex admins

That's just a meme that is told about this places. You can post about any topic as long as it's approached in a serious manner without being just intentional or unintentional bait. The vast majority of what gets removed is previously disproved troll themes like "kike on a stick" stupidity, or New Age/Gnostic Memes. I once made a thread about pagan similarities in Catholicism without problems, even if it wasn't too popular.