The good Lord has brought me and my husband a same sex attracted neighbor. By providence I have been cooking him dinner once a week and showing him Christs love. I don’t know if he knows if I am a Catholic but I pray for him as I make the food. We never know how our Lord is using us to reach the suffering. May the good Lord be with you all ❤.
I'm completely with you, trying to maintain a base line of integrity for moral and ethical behavior- it helps ppl that have sexual deviances from all walks and experiences of various types of attraction. And, given that you're a priest I also understand the heartfelt brokenness you must feel having to tow this line in honor of God and the Church. I'm going to keep praying that the Church comes to understand that "Openness to life" is not about control; it's not about dictating a plan for parenting or child-bearing; it's not about making gay ppl straight, or lie about who they are, or secretly entering into heterosexual marriages, or making us tell our brother he has to be celibate in order to be accepted. I'm going to keep praying that the Church understands that "Openness to life" is about surrendering to God. It's about surrendering to love. It's about making God the center of our love and the center of our relationships, regardless of whether those relationships are straight or queer, whether we are able to have children or not, whether we need marriage or not, whether family planning is a necessity for us or not. When we love God first and foremost, we love others too much to use or hurt them so deviances begin to naturally fall away. We don't have to put on a show, or look a certain way, or pretend to be "normal", or be told if we can do certain feel good things during sex. Just watching you and listening to you, know that you make God proud. It's so evident that you love so greatly.
I thank all those who don't point fingers at me and condemn me. Not all people are the same. But I'd like to say this: The scientific facts, the medical facts are that HIV and AIDS exist. Diseases exist. In love for one another, I advocate remaining loyal. Why risk a disease? So as the priests advocate celibacy, I'm all for it. That's the best way. No chance of HIV or any other foul thing. Don't want to drown, avoid the water.
It astounds me that Mike can't understand why exactly his brother didn't feel like he could tell him about his sexuality. No, Mike didn't preach about how gays should be bullied or stoned to death. But he also didn't preach that gays should be loved and treated the same way we treat heterosexuals. He didn't preach that gays should allowed to love their partner the same way straight people love their partner. No, because even so-called "good" pastors like Mike at the end of the day still feel a sense of disgust and aversion when thinking about two men or two women making love the same way that a man and a woman do, all because the possibility of creating a child isn't there. Cuz you know, you having or not having children is apparently Mike and god's business. To Mike, having children isn't seen as a personal choice that we all have the freedom to make for ourselves. No, because having sex can lead to reproduction, you can only have sex if you are at the very least open to the possibility of reproduction happening. Guess what Mike? Sometimes when women walk around (especially in cities), they get attacked and/or raped by someone. Do you take that to mean that if a woman decided to go walk outside, she must be open to the possibility of that happening? And what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that if she starts to get attacked and/or raped, she must just submit to the attacker and not even try to fight back? See, this is what happens when you apply your logic to other scenarios where I think it's safe to say you suddenly wouldn't argue that we should have to be ok with something just because it's a possibility. There are lots of things that are always possibilities of happening. Anyone could walk into my house at any time and try to rob or murder me. But does that mean that if someone does try to do those things, I should just have to accept it and let it happen? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous thing for anyone to even try to argue. Similarly, just because reproduction is something that can happen as a result of sex, doesn't mean it will happen, and it also doesn't mean that if it does happen, the couple affected must make their peace with it. We should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether we want to bring a life into this world. It's that simple.
If you are saying that same sex relationships violate the law of God, you have to also accept that old people in relationships and knowledgeably infertile couples should not have sex. An intense focus on natural law over the love between two people causes millions to force themselves in lives that aren't their own. Why is it okay to deny same sex people their rights; why is it okay to purposefully and knowledgeably make life harder; why is it okay to say that this love between people isn't valid? On another point, some parts of natural law should be violated. Humans are cooperative but also competitive. We are called as humans to care about ourselves more than others in certain situations. Isn't selflessness unnatural? But by experiencing acts of selflessness, our morality tells us that it is good? Straight people cannot experience the love between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Pretending it is less, they invalidate it. But those who experience it aren't experiencing temptation, or at least not any more that straight people do or in a different way. Rather they experience true, selfless, love. It is in no way less valid than the love between straights. As stated in a Bible verse, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." Even if it does not produce children, it is love, which is important, powerful, and more than violation of natural law, as it is law, God's law. God wants us to find happiness and this is not through suppressing our identities or faith, it is through love and new experiences and tolerance. On a final point, same sex couples who practice chastity but romantic affection do not violate "natural law." What would you say to them?
I am not sure if I agree with what he says but I think this is how he would have answered your questions: 1. Yes, unfertile couples having sex, actually every single couple that has sex impeeding conception is sinning. 2. He is not invalidated love between people from the same sex. He encourages love and this relationships in everything except the sexual aspect. As he says love is much more than sex. 3. In crishtianity the nature of man is to be good and selfless and immitate the image of God. We are not only soul but also spirit 4. He does not say that same sex love is more than homosexual love. He even says that love without sex (that to which he claims homosexuals are called to) is far greater than romantic or sexual love, as it is not blinded by the desires of the body. Everyone can experience selfless love, and everyone is subjected to temptation (sax for the sake of sex) in a relationship, both same sex and heterosexual couples, and both would sin equally if they dont resist the temptation. 5. Yes, love is important even if it does not produce children. Sex on the other hand... its natural end is to produce children, not only bonding. 6. God does not want us to feel inmediate happiness (by acomplishing all our dreams and desires). He wants us to suffer (in the image of christ) and resist our temptations and sins (which we ALL have) in orther to achieve holliness and the eternal life. A parent wants what is best for his child in the long run, that means denying him of other beautiful things, but that are not morally right. 7. On that final point I think he woult totally agree with you, as long as there is no sex, a romantic relationship between homosexuals would not be sin. It would be exactly the same as a not married heterosexual couple. Again, these are not my answers but what I believe he would answer based on the video (I am practically transcribing what he says). I encourage you to take a closer look to the video, as it seems you misunderstood him, it is not about condeming homosexuals, but about showing how we all have temptations and we are in this together.
I want to answer you, but first I want to say that you have defintetely found the wrong platform to express your strong views of same sex attraction. the same sex attraction movement is very human, but not so much natural. Because, looking at the book of Genesis, neither was sin, and yet it was because of human ignorance and weakness for what is right that sin was allowed to come into the world. Also, it says in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22, "Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman, and so I think that it can be seen for the woman with the woman, type thing. So, if you are going to research in the bible maybe talk to a Catholic priest about what God says about homosexual relationsips. 1. I do believe that an elderly couple whose sexual organs and reproductive nature cannot have chidren should NOT have sex, because if they have sex without the intention and with the knowedge that they can't have sex, then that is also in violation of God's law because He put sex into the world to repopulate the planet, and then, after His children had been many in number, He put in laws to protect sex and its purity, sanctity, and everything that it stands for. If you read the entire books of Leviticus, Dueteronomy, or Numbers, you WILL find something on sex and how it should be protected. 2.Selflesness isn't easy, and therefore is hard to do, especially in situations where we need to care for ourselves, but, it isn't unnatural. One could say that since giving birth is hard and painful then it is unnatural, and yet, that is how God made the woman's body, to give children for their husbands. But, selflessness is attainable, truly and for longer periods of time by the grace of God, Who wants us to think of others as ourselves and ourselves last, thereby precribing to us selflessness. 3. The love between a man and a man IS temptation because it is another way for humans to look for their own personal profit by making them feel good, but it is not selfless. Selfless is taking the bad seat on the bus for someone else to sit on a better seat. Selfless is taking a bullet for someone when they are in danger. Selfless is dying on a cross, for the salvation of all men and asking only for obedience and love to His heavenly Father. 4. For the homosexual couples who do not violate natural law by not having sex still violate, what's even more important, God's law, by giving into the temptation of loving a man or loving a woman when one is a man or a woman, they do in fact, break the natural law since homosexuality did not exist firsthand. When God made Adam, God made Adam a companion to spend his life with, the eternal life that was promised, a woman, not a man. God gave Adam one companion to spend his life with, not made two and asked Adam to choose. Also, it is in our hearts to love the woman and yet, a homosexual person isn't born homosexual. They have to be influenced in some way that helps them along to be attracted to their sex. It is hard to distinguish what is truth and what is propaganda, but it is easier to know what is truth and what is fake by accepting our Lord Jesus, Who is the King of the Universe, because of the much evidence that our human reason can explain, but also that faith simply has to accept. I will pray for you. I hope you find the right path. 😉🙏❤
1) false, because the act is still ordered to procreation even if it cannot in this instance succeed, since the act of intercourse is ordered toward creating life, even though they happen to be infertile in the particular act, they are not actively preventing the life that would flow from it, it just isn’t an instance where that end will be successful. 2) natural law is not about what comes naturally but what the end of something is, selflessness is good but does not violate natural law as we are also ordered toward the care not just of ourselves, but of fellow man. 3) you have conflated love, as Fr Mike said not to. As someone who experiences Same Sex Attraction, I understand what you mean about it being “the same” however as it is not ordered towards procreation the sexual end of such a relationship is flawed and wrong, Fr Mike is not saying love between any 2 people is less than the love of a heterosexual couple per se, but that sexual love between two women or two men is not real love as it fails to look toward the good of the other, by dis-integrating their nature. 4) the nature of a “couple”, even a celibate one, is still ordered toward procreation and union, as that is what all romantic couples are intrinsically- ordered towards marriage and marriage towards procreation and union, thus the fact of being a couple is unchaste.
Bonding is ordered to the end of babies. There isn’t a second telos, that second telos is ordered to the one telos of the generation and care of children. That second telos, which makes no sense, is at the service of those who want a loop hole designed to violate the church’s traditional teaching on marriage
Not really, because for a couple that is naturally infertile, it still makes sense and is not wrong for them to have sex, even if they are incapable of having children because they are too old or because their bodies don’t work correctly for some reason, yes it is beneficial for the babies, however for a couple that is infertile it still helps them be good spouses, be faithful, etc.
@@creativecatproductions yet if bonding is not an end to itself, that would make babies the only reason for bonding to exist, and bonding is good unto itself, therefore it is still an end, your comment about it being a loophole is directly contrary to Fr Mike’s point, the second telos does not give permission to violate the first, it simply accompanies the first, if either is violated, the act itself is.
@@t.j.armendariz354 “bonding” in this instance seems to be a euphemism for utilizing sex as pleasurable gratification. If the intended aim of sexual intercourse is to generate children, regardless of the lack of the functional means to achieve this end, then it remains a perfect act in the service to God in accordance with the nature of the marital act. It is enjoyable and beautiful, but it’s also intended to be fecund, its working toward the hope of new life, for God, for whom nothing is impossible. But once the end becomes anything else, that hope is perverted into bitterness, remorse, and resentment. Bonding with a spouse occurs in so many ways: talking with each other, spending time together, serving each other, but sex isn’t at getting to know each other, rather, its a mutual act of co-creation in the service of God. If there really are two ends in marriage, and mutual sexual gratification is one of the ends of marriage, every bit as sacred and central to the act as procreation, then there’s really no reason for Catholics to object to contraception. You’d still be “achieving the end of marriage” which is to have sexual pleasure with your spouse. Its for the very reason that sex is procreation that contraception is forbidden by the church. Yet how many Catholics use contraception anyway? Could it be because they are completely confused? Might it be because authorities have long since given them license to treat sex as recreation, by postulating a two headed teleology? A kind of metaphysical abomination?
Jesus never mentioned anything against Gays. Say the word “Gay” Father, not the euphemism of “same sex attraction.” I’m an openly Gay PROUD Catholic and as Pope Francis said, you all owe us an apology for centuries of persecution and marginalization. Again, Jesus was not against Gays: the word “homosexuality” was not even coined until the 1700s. If you’re a young gay teen watching this, stop! You were born Gay and there’s “nothing wrong with you”. Being Gay is not a disability and you’re free to love anyone!
It's almost as if you didn't watch the entire video. Also, nice logic: "Nuclear bombs were NOT in the Bible; the word "nuke" was not even coined until the 1900s. THEREFORE Jesus was not against Nukes.
Don’t listen to this heretic! It is impossible for anyone to be born “gay”. Is states clearly in Romans 1 that homosexuality is a sin and is something that God hates: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
The Bible nowhere addresses same-sex marriage. There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20-27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two New Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26-27). These do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20-27, 19:1-11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26-27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon.
The good Lord has brought me and my husband a same sex attracted neighbor. By providence I have been cooking him dinner once a week and showing him Christs love. I don’t know if he knows if I am a Catholic but I pray for him as I make the food. We never know how our Lord is using us to reach the suffering. May the good Lord be with you all ❤.
Would you still be friends with him even if he never converted? If he never "changed"?
@@tres-adames I can answer for her: yes she would.
“My Experience is not my identity “🔥🔥🔥🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
I so needed to hear this. Thank you so much, Fr. Mike ❤
I'm completely with you, trying to maintain a base line of integrity for moral and ethical behavior- it helps ppl that have sexual deviances from all walks and experiences of various types of attraction.
And, given that you're a priest I also understand the heartfelt brokenness you must feel having to tow this line in honor of God and the Church. I'm going to keep praying that the Church comes to understand that "Openness to life" is not about control; it's not about dictating a plan for parenting or child-bearing; it's not about making gay ppl straight, or lie about who they are, or secretly entering into heterosexual marriages, or making us tell our brother he has to be celibate in order to be accepted.
I'm going to keep praying that the Church understands that "Openness to life" is about surrendering to God. It's about surrendering to love. It's about making God the center of our love and the center of our relationships, regardless of whether those relationships are straight or queer, whether we are able to have children or not, whether we need marriage or not, whether family planning is a necessity for us or not.
When we love God first and foremost, we love others too much to use or hurt them so deviances begin to naturally fall away. We don't have to put on a show, or look a certain way, or pretend to be "normal", or be told if we can do certain feel good things during sex.
Just watching you and listening to you, know that you make God proud. It's so evident that you love so greatly.
I thank all those who don't point fingers at me and condemn me. Not all people are the same. But I'd like to say this: The scientific facts, the medical facts are that HIV and AIDS exist. Diseases exist. In love for one another, I advocate remaining loyal. Why risk a disease? So as the priests advocate celibacy, I'm all for it. That's the best way. No chance of HIV or any other foul thing. Don't want to drown, avoid the water.
It astounds me that Mike can't understand why exactly his brother didn't feel like he could tell him about his sexuality. No, Mike didn't preach about how gays should be bullied or stoned to death. But he also didn't preach that gays should be loved and treated the same way we treat heterosexuals. He didn't preach that gays should allowed to love their partner the same way straight people love their partner. No, because even so-called "good" pastors like Mike at the end of the day still feel a sense of disgust and aversion when thinking about two men or two women making love the same way that a man and a woman do, all because the possibility of creating a child isn't there. Cuz you know, you having or not having children is apparently Mike and god's business. To Mike, having children isn't seen as a personal choice that we all have the freedom to make for ourselves. No, because having sex can lead to reproduction, you can only have sex if you are at the very least open to the possibility of reproduction happening.
Guess what Mike? Sometimes when women walk around (especially in cities), they get attacked and/or raped by someone. Do you take that to mean that if a woman decided to go walk outside, she must be open to the possibility of that happening? And what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that if she starts to get attacked and/or raped, she must just submit to the attacker and not even try to fight back? See, this is what happens when you apply your logic to other scenarios where I think it's safe to say you suddenly wouldn't argue that we should have to be ok with something just because it's a possibility. There are lots of things that are always possibilities of happening. Anyone could walk into my house at any time and try to rob or murder me. But does that mean that if someone does try to do those things, I should just have to accept it and let it happen? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous thing for anyone to even try to argue.
Similarly, just because reproduction is something that can happen as a result of sex, doesn't mean it will happen, and it also doesn't mean that if it does happen, the couple affected must make their peace with it. We should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether we want to bring a life into this world. It's that simple.
If you are saying that same sex relationships violate the law of God, you have to also accept that old people in relationships and knowledgeably infertile couples should not have sex. An intense focus on natural law over the love between two people causes millions to force themselves in lives that aren't their own. Why is it okay to deny same sex people their rights; why is it okay to purposefully and knowledgeably make life harder; why is it okay to say that this love between people isn't valid?
On another point, some parts of natural law should be violated. Humans are cooperative but also competitive. We are called as humans to care about ourselves more than others in certain situations. Isn't selflessness unnatural? But by experiencing acts of selflessness, our morality tells us that it is good?
Straight people cannot experience the love between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Pretending it is less, they invalidate it. But those who experience it aren't experiencing temptation, or at least not any more that straight people do or in a different way. Rather they experience true, selfless, love. It is in no way less valid than the love between straights. As stated in a Bible verse, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." Even if it does not produce children, it is love, which is important, powerful, and more than violation of natural law, as it is law, God's law. God wants us to find happiness and this is not through suppressing our identities or faith, it is through love and new experiences and tolerance.
On a final point, same sex couples who practice chastity but romantic affection do not violate "natural law." What would you say to them?
I am not sure if I agree with what he says but I think this is how he would have answered your questions:
1. Yes, unfertile couples having sex, actually every single couple that has sex impeeding conception is sinning.
2. He is not invalidated love between people from the same sex. He encourages love and this relationships in everything except the sexual aspect. As he says love is much more than sex.
3. In crishtianity the nature of man is to be good and selfless and immitate the image of God. We are not only soul but also spirit
4. He does not say that same sex love is more than homosexual love. He even says that love without sex (that to which he claims homosexuals are called to) is far greater than romantic or sexual love, as it is not blinded by the desires of the body. Everyone can experience selfless love, and everyone is subjected to temptation (sax for the sake of sex) in a relationship, both same sex and heterosexual couples, and both would sin equally if they dont resist the temptation.
5. Yes, love is important even if it does not produce children. Sex on the other hand... its natural end is to produce children, not only bonding.
6. God does not want us to feel inmediate happiness (by acomplishing all our dreams and desires). He wants us to suffer (in the image of christ) and resist our temptations and sins (which we ALL have) in orther to achieve holliness and the eternal life. A parent wants what is best for his child in the long run, that means denying him of other beautiful things, but that are not morally right.
7. On that final point I think he woult totally agree with you, as long as there is no sex, a romantic relationship between homosexuals would not be sin. It would be exactly the same as a not married heterosexual couple.
Again, these are not my answers but what I believe he would answer based on the video (I am practically transcribing what he says).
I encourage you to take a closer look to the video, as it seems you misunderstood him, it is not about condeming homosexuals, but about showing how we all have temptations and we are in this together.
I want to answer you, but first I want to say that you have defintetely found the wrong platform to express your strong views of same sex attraction. the same sex attraction movement is very human, but not so much natural. Because, looking at the book of Genesis, neither was sin, and yet it was because of human ignorance and weakness for what is right that sin was allowed to come into the world. Also, it says in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22, "Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman, and so I think that it can be seen for the woman with the woman, type thing. So, if you are going to research in the bible maybe talk to a Catholic priest about what God says about homosexual relationsips.
1. I do believe that an elderly couple whose sexual organs and reproductive nature cannot have chidren should NOT have sex, because if they have sex without the intention and with the knowedge that they can't have sex, then that is also in violation of God's law because He put sex into the world to repopulate the planet, and then, after His children had been many in number, He put in laws to protect sex and its purity, sanctity, and everything that it stands for. If you read the entire books of Leviticus, Dueteronomy, or Numbers, you WILL find something on sex and how it should be protected.
2.Selflesness isn't easy, and therefore is hard to do, especially in situations where we need to care for ourselves, but, it isn't unnatural. One could say that since giving birth is hard and painful then it is unnatural, and yet, that is how God made the woman's body, to give children for their husbands. But, selflessness is attainable, truly and for longer periods of time by the grace of God, Who wants us to think of others as ourselves and ourselves last, thereby precribing to us selflessness.
3. The love between a man and a man IS temptation because it is another way for humans to look for their own personal profit by making them feel good, but it is not selfless. Selfless is taking the bad seat on the bus for someone else to sit on a better seat. Selfless is taking a bullet for someone when they are in danger. Selfless is dying on a cross, for the salvation of all men and asking only for obedience and love to His heavenly Father.
4. For the homosexual couples who do not violate natural law by not having sex still violate, what's even more important, God's law, by giving into the temptation of loving a man or loving a woman when one is a man or a woman, they do in fact, break the natural law since homosexuality did not exist firsthand. When God made Adam, God made Adam a companion to spend his life with, the eternal life that was promised, a woman, not a man. God gave Adam one companion to spend his life with, not made two and asked Adam to choose. Also, it is in our hearts to love the woman and yet, a homosexual person isn't born homosexual. They have to be influenced in some way that helps them along to be attracted to their sex.
It is hard to distinguish what is truth and what is propaganda, but it is easier to know what is truth and what is fake by accepting our Lord Jesus, Who is the King of the Universe, because of the much evidence that our human reason can explain, but also that faith simply has to accept. I will pray for you. I hope you find the right path. 😉🙏❤
Well put, Miss WDFG!!!!
You clearly didn’t pay attention to the video.
1) false, because the act is still ordered to procreation even if it cannot in this instance succeed, since the act of intercourse is ordered toward creating life, even though they happen to be infertile in the particular act, they are not actively preventing the life that would flow from it, it just isn’t an instance where that end will be successful.
2) natural law is not about what comes naturally but what the end of something is, selflessness is good but does not violate natural law as we are also ordered toward the care not just of ourselves, but of fellow man.
3) you have conflated love, as Fr Mike said not to. As someone who experiences Same Sex Attraction, I understand what you mean about it being “the same” however as it is not ordered towards procreation the sexual end of such a relationship is flawed and wrong, Fr Mike is not saying love between any 2 people is less than the love of a heterosexual couple per se, but that sexual love between two women or two men is not real love as it fails to look toward the good of the other, by dis-integrating their nature.
4) the nature of a “couple”, even a celibate one, is still ordered toward procreation and union, as that is what all romantic couples are intrinsically- ordered towards marriage and marriage towards procreation and union, thus the fact of being a couple is unchaste.
Bonding is ordered to the end of babies. There isn’t a second telos, that second telos is ordered to the one telos of the generation and care of children. That second telos, which makes no sense, is at the service of those who want a loop hole designed to violate the church’s traditional teaching on marriage
Not really, because for a couple that is naturally infertile, it still makes sense and is not wrong for them to have sex, even if they are incapable of having children because they are too old or because their bodies don’t work correctly for some reason, yes it is beneficial for the babies, however for a couple that is infertile it still helps them be good spouses, be faithful, etc.
@@t.j.armendariz354 the telos remains the same regardless of the lack of means to achieve it
@@creativecatproductions yet if bonding is not an end to itself, that would make babies the only reason for bonding to exist, and bonding is good unto itself, therefore it is still an end, your comment about it being a loophole is directly contrary to Fr Mike’s point, the second telos does not give permission to violate the first, it simply accompanies the first, if either is violated, the act itself is.
@@t.j.armendariz354 “bonding” in this instance seems to be a euphemism for utilizing sex as pleasurable gratification. If the intended aim of sexual intercourse is to generate children, regardless of the lack of the functional means to achieve this end, then it remains a perfect act in the service to God in accordance with the nature of the marital act. It is enjoyable and beautiful, but it’s also intended to be fecund, its working toward the hope of new life, for God, for whom nothing is impossible.
But once the end becomes anything else, that hope is perverted into bitterness, remorse, and resentment.
Bonding with a spouse occurs in so many ways: talking with each other, spending time together, serving each other, but sex isn’t at getting to know each other, rather, its a mutual act of co-creation in the service of God.
If there really are two ends in marriage, and mutual sexual gratification is one of the ends of marriage, every bit as sacred and central to the act as procreation, then there’s really no reason for Catholics to object to contraception. You’d still be “achieving the end of marriage” which is to have sexual pleasure with your spouse.
Its for the very reason that sex is procreation that contraception is forbidden by the church.
Yet how many Catholics use contraception anyway? Could it be because they are completely confused? Might it be because authorities have long since given them license to treat sex as recreation, by postulating a two headed teleology? A kind of metaphysical abomination?
Jesus never mentioned anything against Gays. Say the word “Gay” Father, not the euphemism of “same sex attraction.” I’m an openly Gay PROUD Catholic and as Pope Francis said, you all owe us an apology for centuries of persecution and marginalization. Again, Jesus was not against Gays: the word “homosexuality” was not even coined until the 1700s. If you’re a young gay teen watching this, stop! You were born Gay and there’s “nothing wrong with you”. Being Gay is not a disability and you’re free to love anyone!
Thank you I really needed to hear this
It's almost as if you didn't watch the entire video.
Also, nice logic: "Nuclear bombs were NOT in the Bible; the word "nuke" was not even coined until the 1900s. THEREFORE Jesus was not against Nukes.
No, God said something about being gay. Search up in the Bible, Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22. And I think that God also meant the same for women.
Don’t listen to this heretic! It is impossible for anyone to be born “gay”.
Is states clearly in Romans 1 that homosexuality is a sin and is something that God hates:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Your message is satanic. The Catholic Church, including pope Francis, has condemned lgbt. You need repentance
The Bible nowhere addresses same-sex marriage.
There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20-27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two New Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26-27). These do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20-27, 19:1-11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26-27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon.