Gays and Christmas

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Stillropey claims "Mortal sin removes the possibility of receiving the Eucharist."

My guess is that xyr use of "cannot" was a bit sloppy, not meaning that it removes the possibility, but rather that they are not allowed to receive communion. As the priest has no way of knowing if someone is in mortal sin, removing the possibility would require divine intervention, and in that case I am sure there would be lots of stories about people suddenly being unable to move, dropping dead or something like that when trying to receive communion.

Originally posted by Nordlys
My guess is that xyr use of "cannot" was a bit sloppy, not meaning that it removes the possibility, but rather that they are not allowed to receive communion.

I can only mock what people say. It would require divinity to mock what they mean.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I can only mock what people say. It would require divinity to mock what they mean.

Pity that User 255770 has left the site. Gi-goh!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I can only mock what people say. It would require divinity to mock what they mean.

Thanks for that. In answer to your earlier question, the priest "cannot" serve at Mass if he is guilty of mortal sin as he is required to have communion. That is that. This can be backed up by the catechism.

I put "cannot" in quotes because while it is possibility, it should not happen. Against the rules. In contravention of the law. Etc. It would be, as you say at the start, not "allowed". I'm sorry if this was the cause of confusion for you.

Originally posted by stillropey
Thanks for that. In answer to your earlier question, the priest "cannot" serve at Mass if he is guilty of mortal sin as he is required to have communion. That is that. This can be backed up by the catechism.

I put "cannot" in quotes because while it is possibility, it should not happen. Against the rules. In contravention of the law. Etc. It wou ...[text shortened]... u say at the start, not "allowed". I'm sorry if this was the cause of confusion for you.

Of the thousands of priests who have been habitual child molesters, how many do you think regularly refrained from serving or partaking of communion?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of the thousands of priests who have been habitual child molesters, how many do you think regularly refrained from serving or partaking of communion?

I'd think none. Difficult to imagine someone not having a problem with molesting children deciding to draw a line with communion.

Who'd stop them? The people who shipped them from parish to parish? They didn't even take the necessary steps to stop them from molesting children.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps you lost the context of the NGPA "translation". The NPGA "translation" was merely an example of how 'economic considerations' could exert influence. The point of the section was that all translations are biased by one force or another.

I have to admit that I'm having trouble understanding your second paragraph. Are you saying that what US Law ...[text shortened]... ognizes should be the ultimate indicator of what does or does not constitue "marriage"?

True, but it did say that a "truly accurate" bible would not be financially sound, citing this as an example of something accurate but not financially sound.

In my second paragraph I was not stating any opinion other than I would have liked the site to discuss homosexual marraige, as it said that homosexual sex outside marraige was wrong but, as far as I could tell, did not discuss it within the context of marraige.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In light of the fact that the Catholic Church prohibits certain types of sinners from participating in various holy celebrations, the topic here his:

Should gays be allowed to celebrate Christmas?

who's going to stop em anyway ?

Originally posted by genius
True, but it did say that a "truly accurate" bible would not be financially sound, citing this as an example of something accurate but not financially sound.

In my second paragraph I was not stating any opinion other than I would have liked the site to discuss homosexual marraige, as it said that homosexual sex outside marraige was wrong but, as far as I could tell, did not discuss it within the context of marraige.

I can see how you might infer that it was "citing this as an example of something accurate but not financially sound", but it certainly wasn't explicit. Taking the entire section into context, the last sentence reads to me more like a conclusion of the section that should have been placed in a different paragraph.

So far as I know the Bible is mute on the subject of homosexuality within the context of committed relationships (just what constitutes "marriage" is another topic of discussion). Interestingly enought, so far as I know, Jesus was mute on the entire subject of homosexuality.