There have been several disappointments that have come out of this visit, but this one just crossed the line into anger-inducing. Now I'm sad AND mad.

I couldn't agree more! This morning's news of his covert meeting with Davis cut deep with betrayal. I understand that the Church isn't anywhere near a the point of accepting the LGBT Faithful but, pathetically, so many of us mistakenly hung our hopes on the fact that, because he openly refused to aggressively chase us away, we felt it might be possible that we could be welcomed back some day. At the moment, those hopes have been shattered. Like neglected or abused children on our best behavior, we longed for even the smallest sign of our worth but instead, he kicked dirt into our eyes.

You know I am starting to think that I a cradle Catholic born in 1941 and I am a gay man that is starting to think I should just move on to another faith that might be more accepting of me. What is the sense of wanting to be Catholic but not accepted in my church. I finally left my parish of 10 years because of a priest that is a gay basher from the pulpit. So Political I have decided to go to my old parish but not get involved.
Will see how that works out.

I sympathize with you. It must be unbearable to deal with that. At the same time, the Church truly is more than the hierarchy. The hierarchy comes and goes, but the Sacraments remain. My friends who are gay Catholics often tell me being gay is part of the cross they carry. I think so too, but not because they are gay - rather that they have to deal with people constantly trying to drive them out of the Church and away from the Sacraments.

Thank you for the kind thoughts. I tried being straight so many years ago. Was married have two beautiful daughters and grandchildren who love and respect my husband and myself. My wife passed away in 2004, we were best of friends. I guess that this was supposed to be my life. Through it all I was given a beautiful and generous heart by God as a special gift. I take great joy in that and helps make my life which has been so very very good. I personally never looked for sacramental marriage. My partner and I legally married so that we could receive each others benefits We have been together 35 years.

Terrence, I add my "second" to allen2saint's words below. God bless you and your husband.

Terrence, you're a vital part of our church. I am sorry for the hurt that's been done to you. I truly think the Pope did not understand the implications of this meeting and that it was one of those short meetings set up by operatives, hangers on, etc that he endures. For perspective, wealthy donors were selected for readings in the Friday night service in St. Patricks, rather than local people or the poor that Francis would have chosen himself. I think as this matter is explained more to him, he may say more. Your love for your husband and he for you is equal in dignity to a man and a woman. Your bond is "open to life" if you share your love with others, especially those whom you may "adopt as children" in the physical or spiritual sense. While the church may not completely support gay unions due to their sexual teaching, which is kind of minor league in the grand scheme of things, your love and your ability to share with one another and be a vital part of God's family cannot be denied to you, especially by those who are thoughtless and desiring to subject you to shame and hurt. Their sin is grave, not yours. I support you and many other Catholics do as well.

Almost ten years ago, a friend of mine, respected by not a few priests and bishops and even called upon occasionally by the Vatican to take part in apostolic visitations, dispensed this advise:

“The life of the Church throbs in the hearts of all believers, especially in the most humble, the most abandoned, the poor. Saint Vincent de Paul used to say: ‘The poor have the true religion.’ It is important, while giving the hierarchy its due place, not to exaggerate its role. Basically, it serves the Church. At times when there are tensions between some Church members and the hierarchy or scandals within the hierarchy itself, it is useful to note that the Church is thriving at its roots in the lives of the poor.”

It's also worth noting that even among the hierarchy there is real disagreement regarding the LGBT community... Not with regards to sacramental marriage, but in regards to the legitimacy of committed gay couples and the goodness of their nature. I think the fact that a handful of Bishops and Cardinals have spoken publicly about it means that there are even more among them that we don't know about.

I agree. Germany and Austria have already changed their rules even before the synod begins. Maybe we just should allow the Holy Spirit work the miracle that Francis is looking for. I am not angry with Pope Francis. I think he was used

Holy Scripture has to be read in its historical and cultural context. The Church has not done this, and cherry picks what it adheres to.
Furthermore, no one can say what is sinful for another.

The traditional understanding of biblical inspiration holds that, notwithstanding that biblical authors were inspired, they remained human, nonetheless, and children of their own times. IMO, therefore, they are, because of their human limitation, not beyond question. Had
the author of the letters attributed to St. Paul come from another time and another society or culture, or were he living today, he might very well express his teachings differently from the way he expressed them them.

This applies also, I think, to Pope Francis. Did he come from the US or were living here, he might not have agreed yo a meeting with Ms. Davis, for all his support of the right to conscientious objection, for all his charism of "infallibility" and possession of the "grace of office."

Inerrant, indeed, but only in reference to what God wanted to teach. I have no problem accepting that the truth that God wants us to know is not relative to time and culture. And there are surely teachings in the bible that most Jews and Christians can agree on to be the truths God wants communicated.

But Judaeo-Christian believers dispute incessantly, I'd say, many teachings, which goes to show that identifying which teachings in the bible are God's teachings and and are the truths he wants communicated is not simple. It's not infrequent that what we think is God's teaching turns out to be only human teaching, product of an uncritical reading of the bible and of our own upbringing in a particular society or culture with its customs and traditions.

I think the division among Christians, the different readings of the same biblical texts given b different Catholics are all indicative of the difficulty of finding out what exactly God teaches us without error in the bible.

I beg to disagree that it is crystal clear regarding homosexuality.

What you call the Catholic Church, which "alone has the ability to interpret the Bible and its Christian teachings in an infallible manner," this Church is made up of the hierarchy and the laity, all of us fallible and limited human beings. So I am back to my original contention that I'm not going to repeat.

It's clear you'll not convince you and I will not convince. I'll leave it here, agreeing to disagree.

Yes, St. Paul condemned homosexual acts. St. Paul is not infallible either. He was conditioned by his culture.

No one can say what is a sin for someone else, only for themselves.

ummm…. not that it is important, but Paul (as Jesus) lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. jus' sayin'. agrarian cultures depend(ed) on large families to support the community. makes sense that same - sex unions would not be tolerated- . interesting to read ancient grecian culture regarding sexuality and the sexes. in a nut-shell, boys and young men were more than encouraged to have sexual relations between them. this was a way of solidifying the 'soldier bond.' but when a boy/man reached reproductive age, he was forbidden those relationships. society shifted how it wanted to make use of him. no more ssunions: society determined that they needed to produce children. this was so strong that on the first marriage nite, brides dressed as men and met their new husbands in the dark. point is: society is the major arbiter…. and many of us choose to bless the 'changes' in order to make them right and holy- at least in our own eyes. i am convinced that ''post big-bang,'' society will return to look at single women as useless and non-productive . (get thee to a nunnery.) same sex people will also find them selves unwelcome. society would have other needs for them at that time.

Anyone is entitled to their own moral code and I respect your holding that homosexual acts are immoral. Some religious people also oppose the use of electricity. They live in enclosed communities in rural areas. Perhaps you should do the same.

Again, you are entitled to that belief religiously based or not. I hold the exact opposing view: homosexual acts are moral/ordered and appropriate behavior for those attracted to members of the same sex.

I'm being invited into the koop by the fox. I've had this discussion with authoritarian types like yourself many times in my long life and have not found even one of those interchanges to be worth the time. Sorry, Dp3.

A wise choice, I think. I shall follow your example and stop discussing with 9jZeCeCk.

why would anybody be AFRAID of ''having to change their beliefs.''

I will simply mirror back your last e-mail to you with the same wish for you. Take care, Dp3.

No I didn't run away because I've already met you several times in my long life under different personas propagating the same approach. I'm choosing to not travel this path again here.

The difference in your examples and same-sex relationships
is - consenting adults.

Why? The purpose of eating is for nutrition. But do we only eat to get nutrition? Or can we share food as a social activity, or simply enjoy an ice cream because we like ice cream? Why is sex ONLY for procreation?
(Of course, even the Church recognizes the value of sex in a marriage apart from procreation.)

He can only argue from beliefs he has been taught and not from science. He has faith, not knowledge. Faith is fine but it should not be forced on others in violation of others' consciences.

Yes, eating can be abused. Yes, we need to be careful not to do that, that's why gluttony is a sin. So do we only eat for nutritional purposes? Of course not.

To compare non-procreative sex to bulimia is really waaaaaay out there. Bulimia is an eating disorder, an extreme. Enjoying sex is not a disorder. Sex is a wonderful way for loving partners to express their love. Sex is fun. Sex helps you fall asleep. Sex is good for lots of reasons. Yes, sex can be abused. Some people become obsessed with it, or addicted to it. But that's an extreme.

To limit sex to procreation is totally unnecessary. And silly.

Sex burns calories,and lowers heart attack risk. Sexual stimulation can reduce pain, menstrual cramps, headache, and chronic leg and back pain because it produces a hormone that raises your pain threshold. "Men who ejaculated frequently (at least 21 times a month) were less likely to get prostate cancer." It can improve sleep and relieve anxiety and depression due to hormones, such as prolactin, released in the brain. Clearly there are many health benefits from sex and self pleasuring that would be denied many people if the Catholic religion were forced upon every one. Catholics cannot prove scientifically that God (whom they cannot prove exists though I believe in him through a faith I was taught) didn't intend to create sex for these purposes as well as for procreation.

http://www{.}webmd{.}com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health?page=3

This is a religious belief, not a scientifically proven fact. You can't even prove a soul exists, let alone 'prove' your belief, your faith, is morality. Other religious bodies have other beliefs and faiths and morality. I would hope you would not be arrogant enough to try to press your brand of morality upon every person in the world as if you had that right. Faith is fine, in its place. But faith is not necessarily fact because faith cannot be proven. Once something can be proven, there is no need for faith because faith is the belief, the hope, in things unseen and unproven.

He has a perverted view of sex. Time to use the ignore button.

Neither is philosophy scientific fact. Natural Law is a philosophy. It is not science or fact. The construct we call 'morality' is a social contract. What is moral in one religion, philosophy, or culture, is immoral in another, and even from person to person. If a Catholic decided not to give licenses to divorced persons to remarry, everyone would throw a hissy fit. If a vegetarian decided not to issue hunting licenses, the NRA would be 'up in arms'. It isn't up to Kim Davis to violate the law in order to force others to live according to her religious beliefs. That's way above her already more than decent pay grade. She swore an oath to uphold the law.

I'm not as familiar with the bakers. Did they have a business license from the state that obligated them to serve all customers? I have no idea. I have read that the reason they had to pay some money was because they revealed personal details about the couple that they were angry with thus putting them in harm's way, subjecting them to death threats and etc. Now there is probably someone on these boards who knows far more about that case than I do. It would be better if you discussed that particular case with them.