So, make the Church a democracy and change its teachings on sexual morality. What was sacred for 1,500+ years (the traditional Latin Mass) is now odious, and what was odious and sinful for 2,000+ years is now sacred!
It would seem to me that if homosexuality is not a sin, and if remarriage after divorce is not adultery, then the Church…
So, make the Church a democracy and change its teachings on sexual morality. What was sacred for 1,500+ years (the traditional Latin Mass) is now odious, and what was odious and sinful for 2,000+ years is now sacred!
It would seem to me that if homosexuality is not a sin, and if remarriage after divorce is not adultery, then the Church is not what she claims to be. If you believe these things, why would you be a member of the Church? And, supposing the Church would change its teaching, why should anyone join an institution that says X is true one day and false the next? The Church would have no doctrinal integrity, which is, at root, something required for any religion to be true.
So, make the Church a democracy and change its teachings on sexual morality. What was sacred for 1,500+ years (the traditional Latin Mass) is now odious, and what was odious and sinful for 2,000+ years is now sacred!
It would seem to me that if homosexuality is not a sin, and if remarriage after divorce is not adultery, then the Church is not what she claims to be. If you believe these things, why would you be a member of the Church? And, supposing the Church would change its teaching, why should anyone join an institution that says X is true one day and false the next? The Church would have no doctrinal integrity, which is, at root, something required for any religion to be true.
“In order to be credible the Church needs to admit it has been wrong for 2000 years” won’t have the effect these Luxemburgers think it will have.
I believe you're assuming most people think rationally.