Archbishop Chaput sees election days as ‘tough times’ for Catholics

[Prodigal_Son1]

They support Gay Marriage.

Sodomy is an act. Gays are people, seeking specific rights. As was requested, care to provide one democrat who espoused ‘sodomy’?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Sodomy is an act. Gays are people, seeking specific rights. As was requested, care to provide one democrat who espoused ‘sodomy’?

I didn’t say Gays. I said Gay Marriage. Gay marriage is an act. Gays who get married do perform sodomy.

Do you support Gay marriage?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t say Gays. I said Gay Marriage. Gay marriage is an act. Gays who get married do perform sodomy.

Do you support Gay marriage?

No, I don’t support gay marriage, to answer your ad hominem question.

The only ones I’ve seen preferring to use the term sodomy over the gay rights being discussed by politicians are posters on these forums. One more time, do you know of any politician that promoted ‘sodomy’ itself?

That’s a tactic that takes away from the credibility of the argument and appears religiously fanatical to the secular eye. To summarize, it hurts more than helps, and shows a lack of charity as well is disrespectful, I believe.

 

[JMJSHJ]

No, I don’t support gay marriage, to answer your ad hominem question.

It wasn’t an ad hominem question. I brought up gay marriage and then you say Gays are seeking specific rights. Gays and those who support Gay marriage consider gay marriage as a right. So its a fair question.

The only ones I’ve seen preferring to use the term sodomy over the gay rights being discussed by politicians are posters on these forums. One more time, do you know of any politician that promoted ‘sodomy’ itself?

Sodomy and gay marriage go hand in hand. To support one (gay marriage) is to support the other.

 

[Mickey]

The only ones I’ve seen preferring to use the term sodomy over the gay rights being discussed by politicians are posters on these forums. .

But homosexuals who have sexual relations are engaging in sodomy…are they not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It wasn’t an ad hominem question. I brought up gay marriage and then you say Gays are seeking specific rights. Gays and those who support Gay marriage consider gay marriage as a right. So its a fair question.

Sodomy and gay marriage go hand in hand. To support one (gay marriage) is to support the other.

I distinguished between what politicians discussed, none of which specifically spoke of sodomy.

The fixation on sodomy is unbelievable, and is solely used for demonizing further. As I said, I believe it works against the DOMA to use less than honest tactics, by using demonizing adjectives. It is not something that was mentioned by any politician, and only takes away from the credibility of the argument and seems to be more than slightly immature. So, if something like that weakens DOMA, would the person be complicit for using less than honest tactics?

Let’s go further than politicians, show me one man of the Church that refers to the promotion of sodomy being a part of the democratic platform? I don’t believe you’ll find one, because as I say, it lacks charity and is disrespectful.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But homosexuals who have sexual relations are engaging in sodomy…are they not?

I really don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss sexual acts on a public forum, especially a Christian forum. Evidently the politicians, and the men of the Church, must feel the same way as I don’t know of a single one that publicly referenced sodomy specifically.

I believe it’s only used here to inflame democrats, which lacks charity, is disrespectful, dishonest, and as I said, more than slightly immature.

 

[Mickey]

I believe it’s only used here to inflame democrats, which lacks charity, is disrespectful, dishonest, and as I said, more than slightly immature.

Actually, I think it is you who are being a bit immature. Sodomy is a gravely disordered act according to the Church…and unless a homosexual couple have made a vow of celibacy…their relations are considered to be sodomy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I think it is you who are being a bit immature. Sodomy is a gravely disordered act according to the Church…and unless a homosexual couple have made a vow of celibacy…their relations are considered to be sodomy.

Then please show me one politician that promoted sodomy, or one man of the Church that specifically addressed sodomy as being a part of the democrat platform. If you can’t do that, at least get back on topic of the thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Those who are fixated on ‘sodomy’, it lacks charity, is disrespectful, dishonest, and immature. You couldn’t use those type tactics evangelizing others to the faith, or from the errors of their ways. Love and charity in all things. Think about what you’re doing, and as I said, on a ‘Christian’ forum.

 

[Mickey]

Then please show me one politician that promoted sodomy, or one man of the Church that specifically addressed sodomy as being a part of the democrat platform. If you can’t do that, at least get back on topic of the thread.

Well…I did not say I was going to show you politicians or clergy who were going to accuse the democratic platform of sodomy.

But I am saying that the democratic party approved homosexual “marriage”…and unless they are chaste…the result of relations is labeled as sodomy. That’s just a plain fact.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well…I did not say I was going to show you politicians or clergy who were going to accuse the democratic platform of sodomy.

But I am saying that the democratic party approved homosexual “marriage”…and unless they are chaste…the result of relations is labeled as sodomy. That’s just a plain fact.

That’s sad, really sad. Do you feel self righteous? Justified? Serving Him? Where is that example taught in the Church?

 

[Mickey]

Those who are fixated on ‘sodomy’, it lacks charity, is disrespectful, dishonest, and immature.

No one is fixated on anything here. I see no lack of charity, dishonesty or disrespect. And it seems that you are the only one being immature with your tirade.

You couldn’t use those type tactics evangelizing others to the faith, or from the errors of their ways.

Are people supposed to pretend that sodomy is not a sin? What does your Church teach?

 

[Mickey]

That’s sad, really sad.

Yes. Your tirade is very sad.

Do you feel self righteous?

No.

Justified?

No.

Serving Him?

Whenever I can.

Where is that example taught in the Church?

“Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No one is fixated on anything here. I see no lack of charity, dishonesty or disrespect. And it seems that you are the only one being immature with your tirade.

Are people supposed to pretend that sodomy is not a sin? What does your Church teach?

You know it’s a sin and you know it’s taught against in the Church; however, it’s not addressed as such in a public forum, or in an attempt to evangelize those in error back to the Church, by any of the men of the Church. The Church teaches to love the sinner, but hate the sin. I fail to see any compassion in the persistence to go beyond the example the men of the Church set for us all.

You’ve made yourself very clear to me, and I don’t see a need to continue a discussion with you. You’re in my prayers.

 

[Mickey]

You know it’s a sin and you know it’s taught against in the Church;

Yes.

however, it’s not addressed as such in a public forum,

Of course it is. The subject is tame compared to some of the subjects I have seen.

The Church teaches to love the sinner

Yes. The Church teaches to love the sinner and hate the sin. Notice I did not not condemn anyone or spew hatred. I merely set forth the teaching of the Church.

You’ve made yourself very clear to me, and I don’t see a need to continue a discussion with you.

Your upheaval on this subject seems very over reactive to me. Perhaps I did not make myself so clear. Perhaps this additional teaching from the Church will help:

**“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359). **

You’re in my prayers.

Thank you. I need many prayers. I will light a candle for you also.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From what I’ve seen on this thread, I am in total agreement with Archbishop Chaput.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says that when it comes to voting, Catholics may not be able to support either the Republicans or the Democrats, now and in the coming years.

“The day may come when Catholics can support neither of the main American political parties or their candidates. Some think it’s already arrived,” Philadelphia’s archbishop wrote in a Nov. 6 essay for The Witherspoon Institute.

“Serious Catholics” who believe in the Church’s teaching on social and life issues “can’t settle comfortably in either political party,” he remarked.

But this is nothing new, Archbishop Chaput said, adding that Christians find their home and hope in heaven.

There is no righteousness in any political party. Politics for some is just a license to drop all charity, required of all believers.

 

[Rence]

The solution is to take health care out of the hands of the employers

That’s exactly what Obama did when he put the responsibility on the shoulders of the insurance companies. His mandate dictates that the insurance companies make it available, across the board, for all plans. The employer has nothing to do with it. They just don’t like the fact that their employees will have acccess to a benefit that they could deny them.

 

[JimG]

That’s exactly what Obama did when he put the responsibility on the shoulders of the insurance companies. His mandate dictates that the insurance companies make it available, across the board, for all plans. The employer has nothing to do with it. They just don’t like the fact that their employees will have acccess to a benefit that they could deny them.

No, they don’t like the fact that they are being required by the federal government to buy a product which violates their conscience.

And why should insurance companies–or the HHS–decide on healthcare decisions anyway? Many people would benefit from being able to buy a catastrophic policy only, paying cash for routine medical costs. But it’s hard to find such a policy because of all the federal regulations which restrict what can be offered.

 

[ProVobis]

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says that when it comes to voting, Catholics may not be able to support either the Republicans or the Democrats, now and in the coming years.

It sure would make things easier on some of us.