Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[jdnation]

As an outsider, I’m surprised to have to correct you.

There’s actually about 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. The OP was referring to the 2 billion or so Christians in the world.

On another note, wasn’t Jesus a Liberal?

Actually commentaries and closer examinations show that it was actually the Jewish religious establishment that was behaving liberally and Christ was calling them out on that.

The Pharasees would liberally interpret the law to suit themselves while at the same time hypocritically placing larger burdens on the shoulders of others who’d also break the Law. Also at the time between the Saducees and others there were ongoing arguments to reinterpret or deny certain doctrines such as the rising of the dead amongst other things.

Christ was not liberally changing doctrines and morality. He upheld it. It was liberal and false teachings that He fought against along with strict interpretations of law that took things too far such as working on the Sabbath, paying taxes to Ceasar and enjoying the Roman privelages when it suited them, placing the money lenders and sellers in the courtyards of the Gentiles in the Temple etc. etc. rather He was denouncing how the hypocrites who studied the Law would use such passages in a hypocritical manner or in ways that were outright incorrect or taken too far to be resonable in ways that God did not intend. And above all that the religious leaders were more keen on placating the secular government than they were about seeing the truth that existed right in front of their very eyes!

It’s actually quite fascinating seeing the parallels of Christ’s time to that which the Church faces today. So really the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Syntax]

No, they are Catholics – but they are not in communion with the Church due to their sin. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. As Michelle Arnold states (emphasis mine),

Exactly. I know the “indelible mark” never leaves. But I am not talking about those genuine “bad” Catholic who continue to struggle with their sin. I am talking about those who outright **defy **Church teachings and who are not in communion with the Church at all regarless that they were baptized. Therefore, they neither represent, nor do they intend to represent, Catholic teaching at all.

Suppose you were baptized, or went through all the formal ceremonies of taking your vows, as a “buddhist,” a “hindu,” and a “mormon” too. Are you then Catholic, buddhist, hindu, and mormon at once? Somone is obviously sufferring from a severe identity crisis here. That’s all I mean.

 

[Zatzat]

No, they are Catholics – but they are not in communion with the Church due to their sin. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. As Michelle Arnold states (emphasis mine),

Peace,
Dante

This has always been my understanding.

I was actually patiently waiting for a learned Catholic to correct my fellow poster that’s convinced otherwise.

 

[Zatzat]

But I am not talking about those genuine “bad” Catholic who continue to struggle with their sin.

Is there a list of genuinely bad Catholics? How does the Catholic Church decide who’s a genuinely bad Catholic?

Also, I’d thought that Catholic Church was for sinners and that all of man kind falls well short of the glory of God?

Lastly, I would have thought that most Christians struggle with sin, as a result of our fallen nature.

 

[Syntax]

This has always been my understanding.

I was actually patiently waiting for a learned Catholic to correct my fellow poster that’s convinced otherwise.

No. Your question is just a dumb question in order to drive your dumb point.

You seem to think “Catholics” who defy Church teaching while practicing sodomy are “unfairly criticized” for their behavior. NO, they are NOT. It is a mortal and grave sin that if continually practiced in direct defiance against Church Teaching completely severs one from communion with God, His Grace, and with the Church.

This is what you are not understanding.

 

[Zatzat]

No. Your question is just a dumb question in order to drive your dumb point.

I noticed you’re very quick to declare someone ’ not Catholic’. Another poster pointed out that you were mistaken that someone ceases being Catholic if they don’t follow along with the Church. How’s that dumb?

You’ve called me thick headed, insinuated that I’m not very smart and now your commenting that my points and my questions are dumb.

Lovely.

 

[Syntax]

I noticed you’re very quick to declare someone ’ not Catholic’. Another poster pointed out that you were mistaken that someone ceases being Catholic if they don’t follow along with the Church. How’s that dumb?

You’ve called me thick headed, insinuated that I’m not very smart and now your commenting that my points and my questions are dumb.

Lovely.

NO! YOU need to read what Dante said. Dante was making reference to “bad” Catholics–what we so pejoratively call “cafeteria Catholics”–those who pick and choose what they want to believe.

Every Baptized Catholic will always carry what is called the the “indelible mark” of their baptizm on their souls–and that is what he is referring to. So technically every Baptized Catholic is always a “Catholic” by name.

But every Catholic knows this “indelible mark” alone does not guarantee eternal salvation nor full **communion with the Church **at all. And this is what I’ve been continually referring to. What do you think a formally declared Heretic is? It’s a Catholic baptized in the Faith, who carries this mark on their souls, but then rejects all or some of the teachings taught by the Church.

So everyone, including myself, have shown how trivially stupid your point is–and it makes you look dumb.

What IS your point anyway???

 

[jdnation]

On the topic of who is a Catholic. If you are baptized into the Catholic faith, then you are a Catholic, period. But this is simply a mark of identification.

One can be a Catholic, yet either be a faithful disciple, or a rebellious sinner, or a heretic, or a blasphemer. Either in full conscience, or in ignorance of their state. Yet these are all Catholics ‘in name.’ Those who will call out to God day and night and to whom God will say, “Depart from Me, for I do no know thee.” Or because their faith is tepid God will spit them out for being neither hot nor cold, but complacent.

Catholics to whom the proper revelation of God and teachings of morality are given will be held accountable for how faithfully they seek to serve God.

Those who are rebellious, would be better off not labelling themselves ‘Catholic,’ for God will more severely punish a heretical and rebellious Catholic than He will anyone of any other faith, because they who call themselves ‘Catholic’ ought to know better! Once you label yourself as a Catholic, you will be held up to the standard that God expects Catholics to be!

During judgment, God will judge a priest more harshly than He will judge the Catholic Laity, and He will judge the Catholics more harshly than He will judge the Protestant who was never shown the true Church, and He will judge all those who call themselves Christian more than He would judge those to whom the proper revelation of God has not been suficiently revealed to. For each person in their roles, whatever they may be has an expectation to live up to given their acknowledgment of God and the manner in which they seek to serve Him.

But at the same time God grants more grace and rewards to those who take on the role and duty of priests, and He offers the sacraments and easier means of salvation to those who properly follow the Catholic faith, and He will have mercy on those of the other Christian sects who try to faithfully serve Him within their own knowledge and to other religious people who practice charity, forgiveness and mercy, He will also be charitable, merciful and forgive despite what faith they are.

More so than that, those in positions of importance, whether in government, or in the Church heirarchy will have God be more critical of them for many people will depend on them to lead them to the truth. Even for the smallest individual, if you, by your erronous ways lead or convince anyone to walk astray from the proper faith and morality, their inevitable end will also be your responsibility and God will judge you on the basis of whether you have led others to their salvation or towards their demise.

So rather than asking who is a ‘Catholic’, you’d better be prepared to ask yourselves, whether you are prepared to label yourself a ‘Catholic’ because God will indeed have expectations of you! And depending on the team you are playing for, God will judge you accordingly. So think very hard about what it is that you are going to identify yourself as. God will not tolerate you making a mockery of the faith He wants people to have in Him. And leading others to believe and follow error and to be a participant in efforts to turn younger generations away from the knowledge of God by false teachings and promoting immorality will not only lead them to their doom, but they will in hell accuse you for leading them astray and they shall testify against you before God. and God will hold you accountable for every single one of them, and on top of that, He will multiply your sentence because you did these things while abusing your position and role as a ‘Catholic.’ If you do not fall into hell, you can expect to spend a long and painful time in Purgatory until you have paid the price for your errors in full!

A man may commit a crime. But a policeman or a judge committing a crime will have far worse consequences placed on them because of their expected role in society and because they dishonor their profession in the eyes of many.

In the same way will Catholics, who does not follow their faith accordingly, also find themselves in such a situation. For they will have dishonored themselves, and their faith in the eyes of many, and to dishonor the faith is to put the eternal salvation of many outside the faith at great risk for they will think ill or falsely about it, whereas tthere is the risk of others within the faith following your example and doing even more damage to their salvation and that of others. And God will not tolerate this!

 

[Syntax]

On the topic of who is a Catholic. If you are baptized into the Catholic faith, then you are a Catholic, period. But this is simply a mark of identification.

One can be a Catholic, yet either be a faithful disciple, or a rebellious sinner, or a heretic, or a blasphemer. Either in full conscience, or in ignorance of their state. Yet these are all Catholics ‘in name.’ Those who will call out to God day and night and to whom God will say, “Depart from Me, for I do no know thee.” Or because their faith is tepid God will spit them out for being neither hot nor cold, but complacent.

Catholics to whom the proper revelation of God and teachings of morality are given will be held accountable for how faithfully they seek to serve God.

Those who are rebellious, would be better off not labelling themselves ‘Catholic,’ for God will more severely punish a heretical and rebellious Catholic than He will anyone of any other faith, because they who call themselves ‘Catholic’ ought to know better! Once you label yourself as a Catholic, you will be held up to the standard that God expects Catholics to be!

During judgment, God will judge a priest more harshly than He will judge the Catholic Laity, and He will judge the Catholics more harshly than He will judge the Protestant who was never shown the true Church, and He will judge all those who call themselves Christian more than He would judge those to whom the proper revelation of God has not been suficiently revealed to. For each person in their roles, whatever they may be has an expectation to live up to given their acknowledgment of God and the manner in which they seek to serve Him.

But at the same time God grants more grace and rewards to those who take on the role and duty of priests, and He offers the sacraments and easier means of salvation to those who properly follow the Catholic faith, and He will have mercy on those of the other Christian sects who try to faithfully serve Him within their own knowledge and to other religious people who practice charity, forgiveness and mercy, He will also be charitable, merciful and forgive despite what faith they are.

More so than that, those in positions of importance, whether in government, or in the Church heirarchy will have God be more critical of them for many people will depend on them to lead them to the truth. Even for the smallest individual, if you, by your erronous ways lead or convince anyone to walk astray from the proper faith and morality, their inevitable end will also be your responsibility and God will judge you on the basis of whether you have led others to their salvation or towards their demise.

So rather than asking who is a ‘Catholic’, you’d better be prepared to ask yourselves, whether you are prepared to label yourself a ‘Catholic’ because God will indeed have expectations of you! And depending on the team you are playing for, God will judge you accordingly. So think very hard about what it is that you are going to identify yourself as. God will not tolerate you making a mockery of the faith He wants people to have in Him. And leading others to believe and follow error and to be a participant in efforts to turn younger generations away from the knowledge of God by false teachings and promoting immorality will not only lead them to their doom, but they will in hell accuse you for leading them astray and they shall testify against you before God. and God will hold you accountable for every single one of them, and on top of that, He will multiply your sentence because you did these things while abusing your position and role as a ‘Catholic.’ If you do not fall into hell, you can expect to spend a long and painful time in Purgatory until you have paid the price for your errors in full!

A man may commit a crime. But a policeman or a judge committing a crime will have far worse consequences placed on them because of their expected role in society and because they dishonor their profession in the eyes of many.

In the same way will Catholics, who does not follow their faith accordingly, also find themselves in such a situation. For they will have dishonored themselves, and their faith in the eyes of many, and to dishonor the faith is to put the eternal salvation of many outside the faith at great risk for they will think ill or falsely about it, whereas tthere is the risk of others within the faith following your example and doing even more damage to their salvation and that of others. And God will not tolerate this!

Thank you for taking the time to so eloquently put it! :clapping:

It’s embarrassing that people like Zatzat with such an elementary understanding of Catholic Tradition don’t get this

 

[Magnanimity]

The issue boils down to christians deciding if some people should not have the same legal rights as others.

No, not at all, although I can see why you would think this from the fact that much of the opposition to gay marriage does end up getting couched in a religious framework. It kills me. So often the two sides of this debate are total ships passing in the night with proponents of gay marriage often taking a ‘civil rights’ stance (which the other side will not grant) and the opponents of gay marriage often taking a religious stance (which will likewise not be granted by the other side)!

I therefore tend to engage in these arguments from more of a natural law perspective. It is interesting to consider that natural (ie, from nature) arguments underlie basically every major position of the Church in sexual ethics. From Humanae Vitae to JPII’s Letter to Families, the teaching is wrought through with natural arguments, so much so, I would argue, that it isn’t necessary to even appeal to religious sentiment to oppose the idea of gay marriage. This natural law ethics, combined with the facts from history (that even within societies that have been openly accepting, and not just tolerant, of homosexuality, there has never been a similar push for gay marriage-NB, the Greeks) and voilà–you’ve got some serious arguments on the side of maintaining marriage as it’s been understood since time immemorial.

StrawberryJam, your line above makes it sound like the only way to oppose gay marriage is through a religious framework, but why would that be true?

 

[Syntax]

This natural law ethics, combined with the facts from history (that even within societies that have been openly accepting, and not just tolerant, of homosexuality, there has never been a similar push for gay marriage-NB, the Greeks)

FYI–as far as we know, the Greeks never sanctioned actual homosexual marriages. There was, however, a kind of contractual relationship that might have been set up between aristocratic men and young boys for the purpose of tutoring the boy in exchange for sexual relations, but the agreement was dissolved upon the boy reaching a certain age.

And only some of the later deranged Roman emperors actually went through ceremonies marrying other men while still being married to their wives. But it is arguable whether Roman culture sanctioned homosexual marriages on the whole. As you may know, there were some pretty crazy emperors during the Pax Romana.

 

[Zatzat]

]A man may commit a crime. But a policeman or a judge committing a crime will have far worse consequences placed on them because of their expected role in society and because they dishonor their profession in the eyes of many.

Wrong. Justice is blind. You’re God is apparently the one with multiple standards. Human beings are capable of treating people equally under the law, yet a perfect being isn’t?

Bizarre.

 

[Realist]

I therefore tend to engage in these arguments from more of a natural law perspective. It is interesting to consider that natural (ie, from nature) arguments underlie basically every major position of the Church in sexual ethics. From Humanae Vitae to JPII’s Letter to Families, the teaching is wrought through with natural arguments, so much so, I would argue, that it isn’t necessary to even appeal to religious sentiment to oppose the idea of gay marriage. This natural law ethics, combined with the facts from history (that even within societies that have been openly accepting, and not just tolerant, of homosexuality, there has never been a similar push for gay marriage-NB, the Greeks) and voilà–you’ve got some serious arguments on the side of maintaining marriage as it’s been understood since time immemorial.

cough Eugenics cough

Feel free to oppose gay marriage because your religion teaches you to oppose it, but don’t pretend you are opposing it for any other reason.

 

[tjm190]

Wrong. Justice is blind. You’re God is apparently the one with multiple standards. Human beings are capable of treating people equally under the law, yet a perfect being isn’t?

Bizarre.

A justice system’s duty is to keep order- thus, everyone is held to the standard (the standard being what we consider to be necessary for an orderly society)

The judgement passed upon souls is supposed to determine how well the individual aligned him or herself with the judger- this must take into account the individuals circumstances.

 

[Rence]

Right. And it is any wonder that they call themselves “Catholic” at all. It’s stupid, moronic, and inconsistent. Why are they not Unitarian, or some other more liberal protestant denomination??

**I totally understand where you’re coming from Syntax. The rules of the CC make complete sense to you and so far you aren’t in conflict with any of the teachings, or if you once were, they are resolved. So of course, it would be very strange (stupid, moronic, and inconsistent even ) for someone to still call themselves “Catholic” when they are in conflict with some of the teachings of the Church. But I can answer that: Because those other denominations don’t have the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist, the Rosary, and all those other wonderful things that come with being Catholic. If there were, perhaps more people would leave the Church an join that other hypothetical religion, but so far, it doesn’t exist. Something is missing, and that something is evidently important enough to keep people who don’t agree with everything the CC teaches. Does that make sense? Probably not, but I tried. Because I understand you. **

This is a dumb question. Why would anyone give themselves the label of group whose doctrines and principles he or she outright disagreed with from the start?
**
Maybe it’s not from the start? Because they agree with enough of it to associate themselves with that group? Beause they started out with the basics. Maybe they thought they agreed with it all, all their lives, and the more they thought about it, the less some teachings made sense, while other teachings just made more sense? Maybe they’re still in the process of sorting it all out? While people like you (no offense, really this isn’t a personal attack) are yelling at them about how they don’t belong and to just go away. Maybe even they haven’t found anything “better” yet?**

It depends on the extent to which they actually defy Church Teachings. If a person denies important Catholic Doctrine outright, then they are very arguably not Catholic. But if they genuinely struggle with, say, an addiction to pornography that they are trying to overcome, they are still very much Catholic because they don’t deny the teachings but are striving to better themselves.

**Well, I was told that I was not longer in communion with the Church by certain members of CAF because I said that, “I would like to see women ordained as priests, and I don’t really understand or agree with the reasons why they can’t, but I accept the rules and will just pray about it, and maybe someday they will. Or at least I hope so”. I don’t defy the pope, I don’t picket, I don’t send nastygrams to the Pope or Bishop, I don’t rally at girls’ high schools, or any of that. I just don’t get it and don’t agree with it, but I accept it as a teaching. Clearly certain catholic members of CAF don’t believe one has the right to think for themselves, or use their brains to think with, but rather, should have a sheep mentality.

However, to answer you more directly, I think at one time or another, we all struggle with issues that the Church teaches, whether we all want to admit them or not. I truly, honestly, emphatically do NOT believe someone who says that they agree with every single thing that the Church teaches without question and without reserve. I just don’t believe that person. However, such a person would be a very blessed and lucky person, because it would certainly make life a lot easier, wouldn’t it? I believe that people who say that they just “decided to believe, and so now I believe” are full of a big pot of gas-producing beans. And I certainly don’t believe someone who claims: “I chose to believe, I just said to myself, just believe: and now I believe”. They’re lying, or just not capable of thinking for themselves. It happens . But I don’t think that’s the case, I think they have to be lying, either to themselves, the world, or both. The human mind isn’t capable of it. You can’t look at a teaching, and if that teaching goes against your moral values for whatever reason, to just say, “that’s okay, I believe”.

Anyway, with regards to following the letter of the Catholic Law VS being a “Cafeteria Catholic”, aren’t those people who kicked out the gay couple’s kid out of school guilty of their own special brand of Cafeteria Catholicism? IIRC, the catechism says that you are NOT supposed to discriminate against gay people, that you are supposed to guide them and encourage them, teach them by example, pray for them, but not treat them as outcasts. So that school, as well as those who agree with the school, are in conflict with the very catechism that they say others MUST obey or else. Aren’t they? **

Christ was right. Don’t condemn anyone. But Christ didn’t mean we should tolerate wholescale sin when we see it. Christ also taught repentence, forgiveness, and a return to God when we do sin:shrug:

**With regards to this thead, I believe the directive from the Church is to teach by example, pray for the person(s), explain the rules, and why they are rules, don’t treat them any differently but make them understand you don’t condone their actions, that you love them, but hate their sin. Right? In the end, you can’t change them, and you certainly won’t change them by making them outcasts, but you might if you follow the rules of the Church like one wants THEM to follow. Again, lead by example. **

 

[Syntax]

Rence,

You don’t need to tell me this.

If you guys paid more attention to context of my discussion with that stubborn individual to whom I was trying to make a simple point, you would realize your “reminders” to me of what the Church teaches is just totally out of context, even though it is correct. You might try focusing that energy on Zatzat, rather than on me because I already know this.

But I do think that a Catholic School’s decision to send a child back home to his gay parents, though not always, can in very many instances be a wise decision. It’s not a discriminatory act against gays! That’s exactly what the gay parents wanted everyone to think! NO. The school’s decision and concern is for the child. And I really shouldn’t be having to ask you to think about this either. If you don’t understand that the gay community will often use any type of opportunity they can get to slander the Church, then you are just hiding your head in the sand while having your Catholic sympathies get the best of you. After all, for what reason would a gay couple be sending their child to a Catholic School to begin with? And just stop and consider the potential damaging effect that would have on the child, being told one thing at school, and then going home to his parents he knows are living in sin. You are going to confuse the hell out of that child. These parents must be sick in the head!! Does anyone stop and think of the Child’s future emotional development??

Christ’s love is always coupled with wisdom and justice. And I ask you to pay attention to the wisest course of actions in individual circumstances instead of blindly advocating an unconditional, non-resistant, and pacifist kind of Buddhist compassion on everyone. Always approaching situations with that kind of mentality can be very naive, and can hurt people more than it harms them in the long run–especially children.

 

[Syntax]

cough Eugenics cough

How are Natural Law arguments against homosexual marriages a way of advocating eugenics?

In case you haven’t noticed, homosexual couples cannot have children…DUH!

Looks like a “Realist” needs a reality check!

 

[Rence]

But I do think that a Catholic School’s decision to send a non-Catholic child back home to his gay parents, though not always, can in very many instances be a wise decision. I shouldn’t be having to ask you to think about “why?” either. If you don’t understand that the gay community will often use any type of opportunity they can get to slander the Church, then you are just hiding your head in the sand while having your Catholic sympathies get the best of you.

**I’m not going to ask you why because I understand your perspective. But on the other side of the coin, schools are responsible for teaching the curriculum that is defined in their curriculum guides, their mission statements, their value statements, etc. If a Jewish, or a Protestant, or an Atheist, or a homosexual parent sends a child to a Catholic school, they should very well expect that Catholic teachings will be taught. This is not slander. Personally, I think there are WAY too many misconceptions on the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality, and it should be part of the curriculum. They can’t slander the Church for it’s teachings because the very same reasons why the Church forbids homosexuals from having sex is the very same reasons why the Church forbids unmarried people from having sex. The Church does not allow homosexuals to get married for the same reason why they don’t allow marriages between couples who cannot consumate their marriage, and therefore are not “open to life”. You’re right, I do have sympathy and empathy towards gay people, however, I do not bury my head in the sand. Rights go both ways. You see me constantly attempting to protect my rights as an individual on this forum. But I also fight for the protection of other people’s rights. A Catholic school has the RIGHT and the responsibility to teach the teachings of the Church. If a homosexual couple sends their child to a catholic school, they should expect it and shouldn’t complain about it. **

After all, for what reason would a gay couple be sending their child to a Catholic School to begin with?

I know people who love the Catholic Church but who are gay…and they would send their child to a Catholic school for the same reason anyone else would: for their child to have a Catholic education. I know, a contradiction, but that’s what they want.

And just stop and consider the potential damaging effect that would have on the child, being told one thing at school, and then going home to his parents he knows are living in sin. You are going to confuse the hell out of that child. These parents must be sick in the head!! Does anyone stop and think of the Child’s future emotional development??

**But it’s the Church’s responsibility to teach children the rules of the Church with the child’s parent’s consent. Clearly, if the parent is consenting to a CAtholic education, that’s what the child will get. There is no study that shows that children of gay couples will turn out gay. The only thing that a Catholic education will do is express the teachings of the Church. Keep in mind that children who attend Catholic school are the children of divorced and/or single parents as well, which is in conflict with Church teachings. What this should do for the child, is teach him/her tolerance, and to accept the sinner without accepting the sins. **

Christ’s love is always coupled with wisdom and justice. And I ask you to pay attention to the wisest course of actions in individual circumstances instead of blindly advocating an unconditional, non-resistant, and pacifist kind of Buddhist compassion on everyone. Always approaching situations with that kind of mentality can be very naive, and can hurt people more than it harms them in the long run–especially children.

**I do agree that every situation has to be looked at individually. Now don’t fly off the handle: But you know what? look at your sentences above. How many people here at CAF told me that I had to blindly advocate the Churches teachings in an unconditional, non-resistant and pacifist kind of way and that I don’t have the right to approach situations as individual and requiring some extra individual thinking. **

 

[Syntax]

There is no study that shows that children of gay couples will turn out gay.

What does this have to do with anything?

But it’s the Church’s responsibility to teach children the rules of the Church with the child’s parent’s consent. Clearly, if the parent is consenting to a CAtholic education, that’s what the child will get. The only thing that a Catholic education will do is express the teachings of the Church. Keep in mind that children who attend Catholic school are the children of divorced and/or single parents as well, which is in conflict with Church teachings. What this should do for the child, is teach him/her tolerance, and to accept the sinner without accepting the sins.

I totally disagree with you. You need to understand that I would be saying the exact same thing if I were both gay and non-catholic.

I am taking the point of view of the child. If the Church’s responsibility is to take care of children, then in some circumstances it is wise not to let that child attend a Catholic school–especially if his parents are gay. Letting a child of gay parents stay at a Catholic School is not going to make matters better for the child, but WORSE. It’s not the same as having to live with imperfect fighting parents, or divorced parents where the child can return to school understanding that his parents are imperfect. The difference with the gay family is that the child’s own parents think what they are doing is perfectly ok and natural. So the child is going to be taught conflicting messages throughout his entire emotional development. Sending that child to an environment that teaches against what his parents are doing while his parents are tellilng him the exact opposite–is an immediate and effective way to drive a psychological rift within the Child himself.

I think you’re either totally crazy or totally naive in thinking the child is going to be mentally stable by switching back and forth between two diametrically opposed environments for years on end. I am confident that in the long run, the cost is greater than its benefits by letting that child stay in the Catholic school. And I think it was a wise decision that the school made.

 

[Zatzat]

The difference with the gay family is that the child’s own parents think what they are doing is perfectly ok and natural. So the child is going to be taught conflicting messages throughout his entire emotional development.

So, is the Catholic school going to kick kids out of school if the school administration catches wind that the parents of one of their students, not only masturbate, but the parents advocate that masturbation is healthy and a normal act?

Or if the parents use birth control?

Or if the parents have sex for other than procreation?

Or if the parents don’t believe they need to attend weekly mass?

Or if the parents aren’t married, but living in common law?

Or if one of the parents got divorced, re-married in a Las Vegas Chapel, never had an annulment and continue to receive the Eucharist without ever going to confession?

Would the Catholic school kick a kid out under any of those circumstances, where the parents unrepetently continue to commit those sins???

Not a chance.

Hence, the extreme hypocrisy and odd preoccupation with homosexual sin of those schools.