Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[donsnow]

??????

Interesting how people can see the same thing but read it differently.
Don said no such thing.
In essence he is saying that we all sin. Giving in to homosexual desires is one kind of sexual sin. We are free to accept or refuse evil. To accept evil without repenting is to accept the chance of spending eternity without God.
Would you mind pointing out where Don suggests that homosexuals do not have a divine origin? I just can’t see it. (But my tummy’s growling – maybe that’s affecting my vision.)

• Reg.

Good evening, Reginator,

Thank you, citizen.
I do try to proof-read and subsequently edit my posts using the “Preview Post” button. When I think I’ve written what I’m really trying to get across, then I tell myself, “It a print” or “print it”, and hit the “Submit Reply” button.
I miss my printer.

Thanks, again, for your (name removed by moderator)ut, you let me know I am coherent.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

Good evening, jomoco,

I sincerely apologize for not making myself clear.

1. All humans are created in the image of God.
2. All humans are gifted with freedom of choice (that’s how I understand free will).
3. All humans who have attained the age of reason are sinners.

I’m sorry I didn’t state those precepts more clearly in my previous posts.

People of all sexualities (I will not be limited to the discussion of just one sexuality - that’s reverse discrimination) have the same divine origin: made in the image of God. That’s been a recurring theme in all my posts, so I have not presupposed anything. Since we’re all of divine origin, we will have to answer to our Creator (either in this life or in the next) for what we did to His image in which we were made. He has every right to expect us to take care of that image of Himself which he gave us.

There are few sinners who willingly represent Satan

I don’t judge sinners of any kind. I let people judge themselves to me by their word and/or by their actions. There is good fruit from God’s people and bad fruit from Satan’s slaves.

Did I state that plainly?

My signature is not an empty phrase.

God loves you,
Don

So are practicing homosexuals satan’s slaves in your opinion Don?

jomoco

 

[JimG]

The Church considers homosexual acts to be intrinsically disordered.
Here is an article on the subject: catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

Marriage is ordered by nature to sexual complementarity. Homosexual marriage is simply an oxymoron.

 

[Darryl1958]

StPaul:

Freedom from Sin; Life in God.
11
Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as [being] dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.j
12

• Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires.k
  13
  And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness.l
  14
  For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.m
  15
  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!n
  16
  Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves,o you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?p
  17
  But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted.*
  18
  Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
  19
  I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature. For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.
  20
  q For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness.*
  21
  But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.r
  22
  But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification,* and its end is eternal life.s
  23
  For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So are practicing homosexuals satan’s slaves in your opinion Don?

jomoco

Guess it depends on how you view God and the Supernatural.

 

[Darryl1958]

Guess it depends on how you view God and the Supernatural.

Yes. from a biblical and a traditional Christian point of view, it is clear enough.
Many Christians think that they know better though.

 

[vz71]

So are practicing homosexuals satan’s slaves in your opinion Don?

jomoco

Practicing homosexuals are slaves to their sin.
And I am sure satan is pleased.

 

[jomoco]

Practicing homosexuals are slaves to their sin.
And I am sure satan is pleased.

And if you truly believe them, or atleast their lifestyle pleases satan?

What then?

Shun them?

Jail them?

Denounce them?

What’s your more charitable 21st century solution for homosexuality in today’s reality?

jomoco

 

[The_Reginator]

And if you truly believe them, or atleast their lifestyle pleases satan?

What then?

Shun them?

Jail them?

Denounce them?

What’s your more charitable 21st century solution for homosexuality in today’s reality?

jomoco

Firstly we must pray for them.
If we are dealing with a Catholic homosexual it would be great to ask for them to pray for us. They carry a great burden and if they struggle successfully their prayers can mean much.
Secondly, get them acquainted with Courage.
That’s what pops into my mind right before bed … For starters at least.

 

[vz71]

And if you truly believe them, or atleast their lifestyle pleases satan?
What then?
Shun them?
Jail them?
Denounce them?
What’s your more charitable 21st century solution for homosexuality in today’s reality?
jomoco

I believe society does them all a great disservice in preaching that the lifestyle is a perfectly normal, it is not. It is gravely sinful.

Those that find themselves in this particular type of sin need are prayers.
Further, there are support groups that can assist in overcoming this sin.

Just as with all of us, these people need to be brought closer to God.

 

[jomoco]

I believe society does them all a great disservice in preaching that the lifestyle is a perfectly normal, it is not. It is gravely sinful.

Those that find themselves in this particular type of sin need are prayers.
Further, there are support groups that can assist in overcoming this sin.

Just as with all of us, these people need to be brought closer to God.

So your prescription is to first denounce them societally, then shun them, and if they persist in their quest for equal rights, to jail them?

Seems a bit stone age to me mate.

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

And if you truly believe them, or atleast their lifestyle pleases satan?

What then?

Shun them?

Jail them?

Denounce them?

What’s your more charitable 21st century solution for homosexuality in today’s reality?

jomoco

Firstly we must pray for them.
If we are dealing with a Catholic homosexual it would be great to ask for them to pray for us. They carry a great burden and if they struggle successfully their prayers can mean much.
Secondly, get them acquainted with Courage.
That’s what pops into my mind right before bed … For starters at least.

I believe society does them all a great disservice in preaching that the lifestyle is a perfectly normal, it is not. It is gravely sinful.

Those that find themselves in this particular type of sin need are prayers.
Further, there are support groups that can assist in overcoming this sin.

Just as with all of us, these people need to be brought closer to God.

So your prescription is to first denounce them societally, then shun them, and if they persist in their quest for equal rights, to jail them?

Seems a bit stone age to me mate.

jomoco

You were given two responses. Neither of them made reference to shunning or jailing them, yet you repeat the question and call it “stone age.”

Looks like you can’t be reasoned with mate.

 

[Contarini]

Well now you will know that the Church opposes same sex civil unions just as strongly as same sex “marriage”. Here is the document, if you refuse to now read it you are guilty of willful ignorance.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

This is the Church’s official teaching from the Vatican written by our current Holy Father, and Pope John Paul II ordered it’s publication. Here the Holy Father is teaching on faith and morals so the teaching is binding on all Catholics. We can choose to submit… or disobey and sin, but to claim ignorance is no longer an option.

The theological principles in this document are sound, but the logic is faulty.

The assumption seems to be that any legal recognition of same-sex couples is putting them on the level of marriage and is approving sexual behavior. But it would be quite possible to create legislation that allowed people who are deeply involved in one another’s lives to have certain kinds of benefits as a couple or group. This legislation could be used by same-sex couples, by cohabiting couples, by polygamists–but it could also be used by people who have no sexual relationship with each other at all.

It is not clear to me that such an approach is condemned by the Church, although the document to which you linked doesn’t consider it as a possibility.

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

We are all as God made us, including homosexuals.

No–none of us are as God made us, including heterosexuals.

Are you seriously suggesting that all sexual proclivities a person may have are willed by God? If you aren’t, then what becomes of your claim that “we are all as God made us”?

There’s a much stronger case to be made that homosexual unions show signs of virtue and are not condemned by the law of charity, and therefore should be celebrated. (I don’t agree with this argument, but it’s worth taking seriously.) But the argument you are making (which applies to people of all varieties of sexual inclination) simply doesn’t make sense given the many perversions of fallen human sexuality.

The true essense of both your and Don’s argument is that they choose homosexuality, rather than being born of God that way.

No, the argument is that like everyone they choose to engage or not engage in sexual thoughts or behavior.

Again, you could make a much stronger argument about the harshness of the Church’s teaching that persons of exclusively and irreversibly homosexual orientation must be celibate in thought and deed throughout their lives. But as it stands you aren’t even understanding the position of your opponents correctly.

Edwin

 

[rlg94086]

The theological principles in this document are sound, but the logic is faulty.

The assumption seems to be that any legal recognition of same-sex couples is putting them on the level of marriage and is approving sexual behavior. But it would be quite possible to create legislation that allowed people who are deeply involved in one another’s lives to have certain kinds of benefits as a couple or group. This legislation could be used by same-sex couples, by cohabiting couples, by polygamists–but it could also be used by people who have no sexual relationship with each other at all.

It is not clear to me that such an approach is condemned by the Church, although the document to which you linked doesn’t consider it as a possibility.

Ediwn

You’re the second person I’ve seen who has used that argument. It seems pretty dishonest to me. The “could be” just takes the argument to the absurd application of a policy meant to allow the sanctioning of homosexual unions. As far as the approach being condemned by the Church: yes, the Church is clearly against civil unions.

 

[Contarini]

You’re the second person I’ve seen who has used that argument. It seems pretty dishonest to me. The “could be” just takes the argument to the absurd application of a policy meant to allow the sanctioning of homosexual unions.

Not at all. You have no ground for accusing me of dishonesty. Nor do you have any business saying what other people “mean” to do.

Step back and look at the big picture here. We are in a highly individualistic society in which communities are not as close-knit as they used to be. People who are not married are very isolated. People need other people. They need close relationships, and there are certain societal advantages to recognizing such relationships legally. This isn’t about sex. What we need to do is to take the civil union debate out of the context of the sexuality debate altogether. Since unmarried people can no longer depend on kinship groups for support, they need to have other possibilities.

The problem with the gay rights debate is well stated by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the linked document: on the one hand, society should not give public approval to disordered sexuality; on the other hand, the dignity of gay people should be respected. The best way to preserve this is to create a broad category of civil unions that does not have anything necessarily to do with sexuality.

As it stands, many people find the Church’s position cruel and immoral because the genuine human needs of people who cannot get married are being rejected along with the disordered sexual inclinations of the largest and most vocal group of such people.

As far as the approach being condemned by the Church: yes, the Church is clearly against civil unions.

But it’s not clear that the Vatican has even considered the line of argument I’m suggesting. The assumption throughout the linked document is that recognition of any non-marital unions between/among people is somehow approving disordered sexuality.

This is how Church teaching develops. The Church makes a statement outlining the theological issues and condemning a flawed approach–people who find the present Church position unsatisfactory go back to the drawing board and come up with a new approach that respects the Church’s concerns while also giving voice to concerns that the present teaching isn’t recognizing. And so on, until a fully satisfactory position is reached.

Edwin

 

[rlg94086]

Not at all. You have no ground for accusing me of dishonesty. Nor do you have any business saying what other people “mean” to do.

Step back and look at the big picture here. We are in a highly individualistic society in which communities are not as close-knit as they used to be. People who are not married are very isolated. People need other people. They need close relationships, and there are certain societal advantages to recognizing such relationships legally. This isn’t about sex. What we need to do is to take the civil union debate out of the context of the sexuality debate altogether. Since unmarried people can no longer depend on kinship groups for support, they need to have other possibilities.

The problem with the gay rights debate is well stated by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the linked document: on the one hand, society should not give public approval to disordered sexuality; on the other hand, the dignity of gay people should be respected. The best way to preserve this is to create a broad category of civil unions that does not have anything necessarily to do with sexuality.

Thank you for proving my point. You have just stated that the best way to give homosexual couples a marriage equivalent is to shift the argument to a “broad category of civil unions.”

I take back the dishonesty comment. You are being very clear with your approach to sanction gay relationships. I don’t think too many people will be fooled.

 

[jomoco]

Thank you for proving my point. You have just stated that the best way to give homosexual couples a marriage equivalent is to shift the argument to a “broad category of civil unions.”

I take back the dishonesty comment. You are being very clear with your approach to sanction gay relationships. I don’t think too many people will be fooled.

What does judge not lest ye be judged truly mean to you Rig?

Have ye not enough faith in Christ to leave such judgements in His worthy Hands?

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

What does judge not lest ye be judged truly mean to you Rig?
Have ye not enough faith in Christ to leave such judgements in His worthy Hands?

jomoco

It means we shouldn’t condemn someone to Hell. Have I condemned anyone to Hell?

What does it have to do with your ability to reason?

 

[jomoco]

It means we shouldn’t condemn someone to Hell. Have I condemned anyone to Hell?

What does it have to do with your ability to reason?

You would deny them the equal rights they seek as children of God.

jomoco