C
catharina
Guest
**All of us are sinners.
Repeating that for the tenth time?
**
I won’t get better.
The disease in rheumatoid arthritis.
There is no cure. It’s primary symptom is PAIN.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Repeating that for the tenth time?
**
I won’t get better.
The disease in rheumatoid arthritis.
There is no cure. It’s primary symptom is PAIN.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
I know but there is no need to target a certain ‘people’ and call them Gay, but don’t worry about it your right this Should be over.**All of us are sinners.
Repeating that for the tenth time?
**
I won’t get better.
The disease in rheumatoid arthritis.
There is no cure. It’s primary symptom is PAIN.
I am deeply sorry for you.
I will pray for you.
C
catharina
Guest
Corporal works of mercy.Young man, do you understand that passage? Go back and read it in context. It is telling us that we cannot be hateful to our brothers and sisters, it is a passage that teaches us how important it is to forgive others.
It says nothing here that forbids admonishing sinners. We are commanded to call sinners to repentance.
Have you not been taught the Spiritual Works of Mercy in CCD?
Spiritual works of mercy.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO important in forming one’s faith and conscience.
C
Castello
Guest
You are to respect your elders, and I am old enough to be your grandmother.What are you talking about it means what it says.
Don’t call you fellow man names or judge others.
Do not question my CCD teachings please
You have been taught error.
I will pray that you find some humility and that you understand that we fail in our duty as Christians if we lie back and let sin scare us into relativism.
C
catharina
Guest
Yoo-hoo? Young one?I know but there is no need to target a certain ‘people’ and call them Gay, but don’t worry about it your right this Should be over.
I am deeply sorry for you.
I will pray for you.
These certain people call themselves gay.
They say they are gay because they are gay.
Maybe they’d rather not say they are homosexuals.
In any event, it’s unlikely you are ready to “teach” theology
to a group of mature Catholics. It would be a good time
to learn theology though. Hope you decide to do so.
L
Leegal
Guest
Uncessary from a secular or business sense, but we do not know her conscience. I think we have a hint though. If she felt that the baking of the cake would make her an active participant in a marriage that her Church does not allow, we cannot judge her.O no don’t get me wrong I am not judging the baker. It is her store and she has rights, but I do think it was unnecessary for her to do it just because they’re gay.
As I said, some would see it as merely a cake and giving no validity to a “marriage.” Afterall, one might argue that a sacramental marriage can take place in a Catholic Church without a cake or even a reception of any kind – so the cake is not really in issue – only what the cake represents to the baker in this instance.
You can argue that she placed too much emphasis on the making of a cake, or a misdirected emphasis, but you must be able to look at this from her point of view too. And that might be that she was a participant by extension if she made the cake. We cannot decide for her what is necessary for her to follow her faith.
Why not pose this question to a priest? Give him the scenario. You might learn that conscience is meant comporting that “present conscience” to God’s law. That in deciding these questions of “conscience” we are to look at the history of the Church as a whole, and that conscience does not mean choice. I know this is hard; everyone struggles with some question or another.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
O no they didn’t teach me this. I just assumed on my viewpoint to just gives gays the cake.You are to respect your elders, and I am old enough to be your grandmother.
You have been taught error.
I will pray that you find some humility and that you understand that we fail in our duty as Christians if we lie back and let sin scare us into relativism.
I’m sure your not that Old.
C
catharina
Guest
from
catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0371.htm
"Dictatorship of Relativism
POPE BENEDICT XVI AND PETER SEEWALD
A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone.
…
In a world that has become relativistic, a new paganism has gained more and more dominion over people’s thoughts and actions. It has long since become clear not only that there is a blank space, a vacuum, alongside the Church, but also that something like an anti-church has been established. The Pope in Rome, one German newspaper wrote, should be condemned for the sole reason that by his positions he has “transgressed against the religion” that today “is valid in this country”, namely, the “civil religion”. Has a new Kulturkampf started here, as Marcello Pera has analyzed it? The former president of the Italian Senate speaks about a “large-scale battle of secularism against Christianity”.
A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone. These are then announced in terms of so-called “negative tolerance”. For instance, when people say that for the sake of negative tolerance * there must be no crucifix in public buildings. With that we are basically experiencing the abolition of tolerance, for it means, after all, that religion, that the Christian faith is no longer allowed to express itself visibly.
When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.
In reality, however, this development increasingly leads to an intolerant claim of a new religion, which pretends to be generally valid because it is reasonable, indeed, because it is reason itself, which knows all and, therefore, defines the frame of reference that is now supposed to apply to everyone.
In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.
The aggressiveness with which this new religion appears was described by the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel as a “crusade of the atheists”. It is a crusade that mocks Christianity as the “God delusion” and classifies religion as a curse that is also to blame for all wars.
You yourself have already spoken about a “subtle or even not so subtle aggression against the Church”. Even without a totalitarian regime, you say that there is pressure today to think the way everybody thinks, that attacks against the Church show “how this conformity can really be a genuine dictatorship”. Harsh words.
But the reality is in fact such that certain forms of behavior and thinking are being presented as the only reasonable ones and, therefore, as the only appropriately human ones. Christianity finds itself exposed now to an intolerant pressure that at first ridicules it – as belonging to a perverse, false way of thinking – and then tries to deprive it of breathing space in the name of an ostensible rationality.
It is very important for us to oppose such a claim of absoluteness conceived as a certain sort of “rationality”. Indeed, this is not pure reason itself but rather the restriction of reason to what can be known scientifically – and at the same time the exclusion of all that goes beyond it. Of course it is true that historically there have been wars because of religion, too, that religion has also led to violence. . . . "
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald. (2010). excerpt from “Dictatorship of Relativism”. chapter 5 in Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 50-54.
Reprinted with permission from Ignatius Press.*
catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0371.htm
"Dictatorship of Relativism
POPE BENEDICT XVI AND PETER SEEWALD
A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone.
…
In a world that has become relativistic, a new paganism has gained more and more dominion over people’s thoughts and actions. It has long since become clear not only that there is a blank space, a vacuum, alongside the Church, but also that something like an anti-church has been established. The Pope in Rome, one German newspaper wrote, should be condemned for the sole reason that by his positions he has “transgressed against the religion” that today “is valid in this country”, namely, the “civil religion”. Has a new Kulturkampf started here, as Marcello Pera has analyzed it? The former president of the Italian Senate speaks about a “large-scale battle of secularism against Christianity”.
A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone. These are then announced in terms of so-called “negative tolerance”. For instance, when people say that for the sake of negative tolerance * there must be no crucifix in public buildings. With that we are basically experiencing the abolition of tolerance, for it means, after all, that religion, that the Christian faith is no longer allowed to express itself visibly.
When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.
In reality, however, this development increasingly leads to an intolerant claim of a new religion, which pretends to be generally valid because it is reasonable, indeed, because it is reason itself, which knows all and, therefore, defines the frame of reference that is now supposed to apply to everyone.
In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.
The aggressiveness with which this new religion appears was described by the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel as a “crusade of the atheists”. It is a crusade that mocks Christianity as the “God delusion” and classifies religion as a curse that is also to blame for all wars.
You yourself have already spoken about a “subtle or even not so subtle aggression against the Church”. Even without a totalitarian regime, you say that there is pressure today to think the way everybody thinks, that attacks against the Church show “how this conformity can really be a genuine dictatorship”. Harsh words.
But the reality is in fact such that certain forms of behavior and thinking are being presented as the only reasonable ones and, therefore, as the only appropriately human ones. Christianity finds itself exposed now to an intolerant pressure that at first ridicules it – as belonging to a perverse, false way of thinking – and then tries to deprive it of breathing space in the name of an ostensible rationality.
It is very important for us to oppose such a claim of absoluteness conceived as a certain sort of “rationality”. Indeed, this is not pure reason itself but rather the restriction of reason to what can be known scientifically – and at the same time the exclusion of all that goes beyond it. Of course it is true that historically there have been wars because of religion, too, that religion has also led to violence. . . . "
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald. (2010). excerpt from “Dictatorship of Relativism”. chapter 5 in Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 50-54.
Reprinted with permission from Ignatius Press.*
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
What?Yoo-hoo? Young one?
I thought this was over.These certain people call themselves gay.
They say they are gay because they are gay.
Maybe they’d rather not say they are homosexuals.
In any event, it’s unlikely you are ready to “teach” theology
to a group of mature Catholics. It would be a good time
to learn theology though. Hope you decide to do so.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Your comparing giving gays a cake to AuschwitzWhat if your job is as an obstetrician and a woman wants an abortion? Is it ok to perform the abortion just because it is your job? What if you were a prison guard in Auschwitz? Was that ok? After all, it was just your job.
I understand that the severity of those two examples are extreme, but I chose them to make a point. Once you justify doing wrong by saying it’s just my job, where does it end?
You are 13 so I don’t expect you to understand moral decision making. I also think that unfortunately you are growing up in a society that strongly rejects Christian principles. In fact, your continued use of scripture the way you do is a very good example of the bias that you have picked up from society.
What would Jesus do? Go look up Matthew 10:1-15 and come back and tell us what Jesus would do.
Peace
Tim
C
catharina
Guest
I hasten to guess that their union doesn’t “pretend” to be a “form of holiness”…and that their definition of “wedding” is far different from yours and isn’t trying to be like one you would have, involving sacraments and religion as you know it.
Not sure if they are getting married in a church or at a civil union…but their form of wedding would most likely and simply be two people who love each other and want to commit to each other in a ceremony.
A wedding, by definition, can be a “joining in close association”…which is what they seem to be trying to do.
Not saying she has to bake them a cake if she doesn’t want to, it’s her business.
But it does seem proper that if she’s only going to bake for certain KINDS of weddings, she should be CLEAR about that in her advertisements BEFORE she bakes five cakes for a couple so that they can come into her home for an afternoon and choose a cake.
That only seems fair.
**Nope. She will bake cakes for weddings, not for gay unions.
A gay union will never fit the definiton of marriage or wedding
despite what laws of any country say. The baker knows that,
I know it and if your are a fithful Christian, you know it too. **
She should be more UP FRONT that her services are LIMITED to only certain kinds of people who have certain kinds of weddings.
This way she will not waste people’s time.
In fact, there may be many potential clients out there who would NOT want this woman to bake their wedding cake, based on her beliefs.
And again, it would be fair to these potential clients to be informed about how this woman does business, so that they, too, can choose whether they want to do business with her or not based on her belief system.
Just as she would not want to bake a cake for this couple, there are many couples who would not want her to bake a cake for them!
If she could be more up front that she will only accept CERTAIN clients, then everyone is on the up-and-up no one will be surprised and disappointed, as both parties were in this case.
C
catharina
Guest
Irrelevant to the matter at hand -I wonder…if it’s not so much about them being “gay” that is the MAIN problem, but that it is for their wedding…then, if the same couple had walked in to get a cake for their child’s birthday party…do you think she would have still refused?
Would you have still refused?
That IS the issue and it has been stated repeatedly.
Simply accept that the “wedding” of two unable to wed - is The Issue.
It’s not a wedding…but it is a gay couple with a child, celebrating their child’s birthday with them as the parents.
WHAT DO YOU THINK???
What would you do???
asking for my speculation; not gonna happen.
Don’t go off topic, OK?
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Auschwitz was a graver situation, yes; however, participating in a sinful act is sinful, no matter the gravity of the sinful act. that was the point.Your comparing giving gays a cake to Auschwitz
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Which is of greater sin murder or giving gays a cake?Auschwitz was a graver situation, yes; however, participating in a sinful act is sinful, no matter the gravity of the sinful act. that was the point.
Which is more sinful killing gays or not giving gays a cake?
Which is more sinful killing 6 million people or giving a group of people who aren’t straight a cake?
Do Tell
C
catharina
Guest
You got it.Auschwitz was a graver situation, yes; however, participating in a sinful act is sinful, no matter the gravity of the sinful act. that was the point.
Grave sin is grave sin.
Sin is sin.
Ignoring the will of God is sin.
N
Nate13
Guest
Your attempt to downplay what the homosexual couple would actually be doing in getting “married” would be great, if it didn’t ignore the fact “committing themselves to one another” includes sexual relations. People make all kinds of commitments in life and that is not a problem, unless we are talking about a commitment to do an immoral act. Its just that simple. We are talking about baking a cake in celebration of two people making a commitment to perform immoral acts. More and more it becomes obvious that the misunderstandings of why homosexual marriage is wrong revolve around a misunderstanding of what marriage actually means.I hasten to guess that their union doesn’t “pretend” to be a “form of holiness”…and that their definition of “wedding” is far different from yours and isn’t trying to be like one you would have, involving sacraments and religion as you know it.
Not sure if they are getting married in a church or at a civil union…but their form of wedding would most likely and simply be two people who love each other and want to commit to each other in a ceremony.
A wedding, by definition, can be a “joining in close association”…which is what they seem to be trying to do.
Not saying she has to bake them a cake if she doesn’t want to, it’s her business.
But it does seem proper that if she’s only going to bake for certain KINDS of weddings, she should be CLEAR about that in her advertisements BEFORE she bakes five cakes for a couple so that they can come into her home for an afternoon and choose a cake.
That only seems fair.
She should be more UP FRONT that her services are LIMITED to only certain kinds of people who have certain kinds of weddings.
This way she will not waste people’s time.
In fact, there may be many potential clients out there who would NOT want this woman to bake their wedding cake, based on her beliefs.
And again, it would be fair to these potential clients to be informed about how this woman does business, so that they, too, can choose whether they want to do business with her or not based on her belief system.
Just as she would not want to bake a cake for this couple, there are many couples who would not want her to bake a cake for them!
If she could be more up front that she will only accept CERTAIN clients, then everyone is on the up-and-up no one will be surprised and disappointed, as both parties were in this case.
L
Leegal
Guest
The child is innocent in all this. I would make the cake and/or go to the party – FOR THE CHILD. I am not sanctioning the union; I am celebrating a child’s birthday as I would for any child.I wonder…if it’s not so much about them being “gay” that is the MAIN problem, but that it is for their wedding…then, if the same couple had walked in to get a cake for their child’s birthday party…do you think she would have still refused?
Would you have still refused?
It’s not a wedding…but it is a gay couple with a child, celebrating their child’s birthday with them as the parents.
WHAT DO YOU THINK???
What would you do???
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
“Names?” Who has called anyone “names?”Don’t call you fellow man names or judge others.
However, in terms of “judging,” the role of judging what is – objectively speaking – a sin, is something reserved to the Roman Catholic Church of which you are a member. Part of your membership in this Church – and what is spoken in the Creed at least once a week, if you are a practicing Catholic – is an implicit acknowledgement that moral authority over our lives has been granted to the Church. The Church judges as to actions, categories of sin. And she records those judgments in many locations, of which the CCC is only one.
Objectively speaking, homosexual activity is declared by your Church and mine to be sinful. Therefore, those engaging in such activity, and who admit that activity publicly, are by definition sinners. Now, all of us here undoubtedly have many different sins, some of them possibly even quite serious. But that doesn’t remove from us our authority, as members of The Church Militant here on earth, to recognize and name certain activities for what they are: sins – whether they are our own sins, or sins committed by others and admitted by those people. That would include things like:
~acknowledged adultery
~acknowledged fornication – regardless of how “loving,” “responsible,” “committed to each other,” “educated”, “sincere,” “well-meaning,” and nice-looking such fornicating couples might be;
~acknowledged theft
~acknowledged cheating on taxes
~acknowledged homosexual activity
etc.
Separate is the question of immoral attempts to seize the title “marriage” from the specific definition that your Church has taught you that it means, and apply it arbitrarily to a relationship which will never be unitive, no matter how the propaganda about it is spun. Only traditional marriage is unitive and within the Order of Creation. The document Faithful Citizenship produced collectively by the U.S. bishops (and linked on CAF’s World News forum), explains well how our Catholic understanding of universal morality and natural law must be applied to our decisions regarding what we see in the secular world (bakeries, hotels, retail outlets, popular media, political campaigns, legislation, etc.).
We have to, as to date they are inadequate.Do not question my CCD teachings please
N
Nate13
Guest
Of course I would bake the cake for the child. Insinuations of bigotry will get you no where.I wonder…if it’s not so much about them being “gay” that is the MAIN problem, but that it is for their wedding…then, if the same couple had walked in to get a cake for their child’s birthday party…do you think she would have still refused?
Would you have still refused?
It’s not a wedding…but it is a gay couple with a child, celebrating their child’s birthday with them as the parents.
WHAT DO YOU THINK???
What would you do???
C
catharina
Guest
I suggest tha you go back and read every post by elizabeth502 in this thread.Which is of greater sin murder or giving gays a cake?
Which is more sinful killing gays or not giving gays a cake?
Which is more sinful killing 6 million people or giving a group of people who aren’t straight a cake?
Do Tell
Evil is evil.
Comparing to evil to evil as “more or less” is not effective.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.