Nuts. Do what you want, just don’t the Church or God to bless it.

Do we honestly think that we, in the 21st Century, are the first people to ever have discovered sex and all the variations there in?  Tell it to the Greco Romans in the 1st Century.

This article is filled with so many errors it would take too long to address them all.  But as for the Catholic Church giving a pass to non sexual sin the man really needs to open a Catechism.

I found out I just had to add one point the author states “There are more ways of being a Catholic Christian than either the Vatican rule-makers or the secularist ideologies have yet imagined.”
Being Catholic is not a matter of one imaging he or she is Catholic.  It is a matter of being in union with the See of Peter, believing that the Church holds the fullness of Truth.  That what the Church teaches as dogma must be held by the faithful for the sake of their salvation. 

It means you do not get to claim to be Catholic if you imagine God approves of baby butchering.  It means no matter how fancy your costume if you are a girl you are not a priest.  It means that if you think the only reason the Church says no to homosexual behavior or other sins is because she is a big repressive meany.  You are wrong.  She says no because God says no.  And that is not my imagination.

His analysis is largely correct, and yet his own position is unclear. The last two sentences are ambivalent to a degree, and where his judgment stands in this argument is largely impossible to tell.

And yet, as to his discussion of the recasting of sexual standards, he cannot be faulted, not for the citing of particular reasons. But there is more to be said, for he has left out the angst that the currect absence of standards has created, and he hs failed to pay attention to what used to be called human nature, that there is such a thing as a woman’s nature and a man’s, and that these are very different indeed. Their needs, and this includes their sexual desires, are very different, and these cannot be entirely routed by cultural changes - masked, redirected, subverted, all that and more - but there is a “natural” identity that is intrisically part of gender. This is in no sense religious or moral, but a fundamental truth that evolution has built into all men and women, but in such varying degrees that contemporary America is able to argue that they do not really exist at all, since the normative is so hard to see to the ordinary onlooker. LM

if you imagine God approves of baby butchering

Except in the First Book of Samuel, where He commands it.

Sure!! Let the eternal God bow to contemporary social standards. Let the Creator bow to the created. Obviously, inclusivism and sexual gratification according to modern philosophizers is superior to God’s wword given us through Christ and the Apostles.

Sheeeeeshhh!!!

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

  if you imagine God approves of baby butchering

Except in the First Book of Samuel, where He commands it.

That’s right, because every situational command given in the OT is to be construed as teaching an eternal moral principle.  That’s why it’s really OK to kill a man to take his wife, as long as you have her cut her hair and mourn.

Also, we are all required to pack up all our stuff and head west from Ur and wait for further instructions.

The author has not said what he thinks the true standard is, except to say that the alternatives of Christian marriage and continence must be expanded.

I wonder how many of the people he thinks he’s citing (Pascal, St. Francis de Sales) would let him get away with what he wrote if they were in the room.