Belgian Bishop Accused of Homophobia

[bones_IV]

Well first of all, this is not a central dogma of the Church. It is not officially infallible (no ex cathedra), so it is open for debate. It also comes from my interpretation the Social Justice teachings.

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

I view this as an issue of human decency. That we are singling out a group unfairly for a part of their being they have no control over. That single thing is not in itself means exclusion from anything. It is my personal solidarity with a group that has been labeled a virtual outcast by others on this one thing.

Somewhere the official stances are stickied, and they do say love the person, but then the rest of the institutional actions tend to run counter to that teaching. Some of it also comes from the timing this “teaching” started to be focused on, soon after the hiding and moving molesters scandal, so I also view this as a unfair type of scapegoating from above, as homosexual and molester are not one synonyms in terminology. (It is possible to have both but it is not a hard and fast rule).

Right now the issue is also only in civil circles, not Church circles, and has no effect on the Sacramental marriages performed by the Church. They are free to do what they want. Families are not broken up solely on what their neighbors do. I believe anyones marriage bond is much stronger than to have something like this break it up, otherwise it was a bad union to begin with for other reasons.

In this and the adoption issue, I look at the entire person. (Of course some same-gender couples are not meant to be together, but for the same reasons different-gender couples are not meant to be together). And sexual preference is not an automatic red flag as it very rarely defines one person’s being.

Another thing. Do you even know what infallibility is? Perhaps it would do you well to read Lumen Gentium on the authority of the Church.

Lumen Gentium

1. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.[39] For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock
   (cf. 2 Tim. 4-14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be
   given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

 

[bones_IV]

Too many holes, NewUlm. “Overpopulation”, even if it existed, was not a problem before 1900, and even then, little goodies like war and famine continue to help out. As for children having “someone there” to raise them, for most of human histiry, people lived in tribal structures where there were plenty of people available in the tribe and clan to look after orphans. The deviancy of homosexuality was suppressed because it represented one, among many, threats to the survival of the species; sterile couplings were not encouraged.

Nice try, and if you believe what you write, good for you, but it isn’t going to hold water.

The idea that the world is overpopulated is a myth. You can take all the people in the world and they would fit in the state of Texas.

 

[Bennie_P]

I quite agree that calling it a ‘hate crime’ is a stretch; still, is it not highly insulting, and possibly inciting or justifying hatred in others?

I have no moral qualms about the Church forbidding homosexuality among its adherents. You sign up, you follow the rules – that’s fine. However, it is thoroughly overreaching when it attempts to enforce its own rules on those of us who haven’t signed up, and if it does so, we have every right to be offended.

And vice versa Right?

So you agree that the City of Oakland is wrong when they make marriage a hate crime?

When marriage became a ‘hate crime’
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. **That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime. **
…
*Effectively, the city has proscribed any speech that even one person might say questioned the gay rights agenda and therefore created what that person felt was a “hostile environment.” This, even though gay rights advocates used the city’s communication system to advertise “Happy Coming Out Day.” Yet the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” are considered intolerably inflammatory. *

The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America’s growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding. In Oakland, this dialectic of censorship proceeded on a reasonable premise joined to a preposterous theory.

The complete story from Jewish World Review

:coffeeread: Free speech is what this thread is about? and the tatics used to oppress it? is it not?

 

[Riley259]

The Gay mafia is at it again.

Link

This is very disturbing…coming to your neighborhood soon.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Another thing. Do you even know what infallibility is? …even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect,

Yep, it is only infallible if it is ex cathedra. This snipped of your clip of Canon Law shows to show the teaching with respect but that is all. You can listen to it with respect and then debate back. Giving respect to the point is not the same as making it infallible. That status has to be explicitly given (and was not given before 1870 at all, see Vatican I, loss of Papal states era).

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Too many holes, NewUlm. “Overpopulation”, even if it existed, was not a problem before 1900, and even then, little goodies like war and famine continue to help out. As for children having “someone there” to raise them, for most of human histiry, people lived in tribal structures where there were plenty of people available in the tribe and clan to look after orphans. The deviancy of homosexuality was suppressed because it represented one, among many, threats to the survival of the species; sterile couplings were not encouraged.

Nice try, and if you believe what you write, good for you, but it isn’t going to hold water.

I was of course referring to it in the long-term historical sense of the human species as to why it exists in nature.

War and famine are actually not keeping pace to keep the population in sustainable bounds.

Some tribal cultures actually accepted same-gender couples. I am aware off the top of my head of a a couple Native American tribes who actually made that a very special status with their gods.

 

[Mirdath]

The so called “gay rights” movement(among other liberal groups and may I add all the ultra right-wing nuts) I truly believe use the very same tatics to promote thier agenda as groups such as the Nazis

Suffice to say I don’t buy it, and don’t believe in a devil. We’re our own demons.

Study history of the different political movements and the founders of the different movements. Try not to overlook what the inviduals believed about God, gods etc. Look at thier tatics and what they would not talk about to the public.

Then study what the Church teaches, from CCC, early Church fathers, Vatican documents and of course the Bible.

And you can become nuts, just like me.

Been there, done that – and here I am.

bones_IV:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

That’s great! Now how is a reference to the Catechism supposed to persuade a non-Catholic? I said I accepted the last six points of the Ten Commandments as good, common-sense rules, not the Catechism.

Please use the language of the Church.

Ego videor video vidi visum plures, plures Catholics dico is ut. Meus pugna hic est non per Templum eruditio tamen per suus secuutus.

I’m afraid I cheated; my Latin is not very good. For the rest of this discussion, I will continue to speak English. If you take issue, please show me specifically where my use of that language was opposed to the goal of communicating ideas clearly.
Bennie P:

And vice versa Right?

Yes. If you’re not a citizen and not in the State’s domain, the State has no right to enforce its rules on you.

So you agree that the City of Oakland is wrong when they make marriage a hate crime?

Wrong and ridiculous.

 

[bones_IV]

Yep, it is only infallible if it is ex cathedra. This snipped of your clip of Canon Law shows to show the teaching with respect but that is all. You can listen to it with respect and then debate back. Giving respect to the point is not the same as making it infallible. That status has to be explicitly given (and was not given before 1870 at all, see Vatican I, loss of Papal states era).

An example of the blind leading the blind. Perhaps you never read what Dignitatis Humanae says,

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.”

And the CCC says:

• 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
• 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Cherry picking aren’t we?

 

[bones_IV]

Suffice to say I don’t buy it, and don’t believe in a devil. We’re our own demons.[/quoute]

Now there’s the root of the problem. You don’t believe in hell or the devil. Remember a clown will perform if it has an audience.
Mirdath;2412123:

I said I accepted the last six points of the Ten Commandments as good, common-sense rules, not the Catechism.

Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose.

“He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).

 

[Bennie_P]

Quote:
Study history of the different political movements and the founders of the different movements. Try not to overlook what the inviduals believed about God, gods etc. Look at thier tatics and what they would not talk about to the public.

Then study what the Church teaches, from CCC, early Church fathers, Vatican documents and of course the Bible.

And you can become nuts, just like me.
Been there, done that – and here I am.

If you keep sticking around, you’ll crack

Still praying for you

 

[Mirdath]

Now there’s the root of the problem. You don’t believe in hell or the devil. Remember a clown will perform if it has an audience.

What?

Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose.

And exactly how is that supposed to impress upon my agnostic self the legitimacy of the authority you claim the Church has over me? And what does it have to do with the Ten Commandments?
Bennie P:

If you keep sticking around, you’ll crack

We’ll see Thank you for your prayers, and I’ll continue to wish you well

 

[bones_IV]

What?

And exactly how is that supposed to impress upon my agnostic self the legitimacy of the authority you claim the Church has over me? And what does it have to do with the Ten Commandments?

Hell is real and it does exist. And many people end up going there because they choose to be there.

Preaching the gospel is not enforcing anything on anybody.

 

[Mirdath]

Hell is real and it does exist. And many people end up going there because they choose to be there.

Preaching the gospel is not enforcing anything on anybody.

If only it stopped at preaching, no?

 

[bones_IV]

If only it stopped at preaching, no?

The society has the right to enforce the common good.

 

[Diana]

Strange… Secularists expect people coming from a traditional Christian perspective to stiffle our voice of opposition to ideas and policies that go against not only our religious beliefs but also against the normative notions of 5,000+ years of civilization. However, many secularists think it their supreme right to criticize, vilify, and even imprison people who criticize homosexual behavior. Doesn’t “freedom of expression” go both ways? How can a society consider itself “free” if it prosecutes people for their ideas?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Strange… Secularists expect people coming from a traditional Christian perspective to stiffle our voice of opposition to ideas and policies that go against not only our religious beliefs but also against the normative notions of 5,000+ years of civilization. However, many secularists think it their supreme right to criticize, vilify, and even imprison people who criticize homosexual behavior. Doesn’t “freedom of expression” go both ways? How can a society consider itself “free” if it prosecutes people for their ideas?

It is called an “Orwellian Mindset”. “Slavery is freedom and Freedom is slavery”. It is our duty to stand up and fight Positive Law that goes against Natural Law. Secular Relativism must be eliminated.

 

[goofyjim]

Strange… Secularists expect people coming from a traditional Christian perspective to stiffle our voice of opposition to ideas and policies that go against not only our religious beliefs but also against the normative notions of 5,000+ years of civilization. However, many secularists think it their supreme right to criticize, vilify, and even imprison people who criticize homosexual behavior. Doesn’t “freedom of expression” go both ways? How can a society consider itself “free” if it prosecutes people for their ideas?

Totally agreed. Freedom of expression goes both ways. But how many Christians have imprisoned people who practiced homosexual behavior in the past? I don’t see it necessary to silence Christian speech but I also don’t see it necessary to silence homosexuals. Both can exist.

 

[_anna]

"Totally agreed. Freedom of expression goes both ways. But how many Christians have imprisoned people who practiced homosexual behavior in the past? I don’t see it necessary to silence Christian speech but I also don’t see it necessary to silence homosexuals. Both can exist."

Not only can but should exist!
One of my sons is homosexual and he’s a lovely person.
Homosexuals also have loving, caring and stable relationships.
I don’t understand homophobics
Didn’t someone once say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” ?
And if homosexuals could not exist, just think of all that we would have lost in the way of Art, Literature and Inventions. No Leonardo da Vinci! No Oscar Wilde…etc

 

[Mirdath]

The society has the right to enforce the common good.

The Roman Catholic Church is not society, unless perhaps you’re standing on the Vatican hill.

Diana:

However, many secularists think it their supreme right to criticize, vilify, and even imprison people who criticize homosexual behavior.

What’s wrong with criticism, and how is two-way criticism not going both ways? The remaining two, yes, are not good; but just as there are some ‘secularists’ who want to quash all who disagree with them, there’s no want of the faithful trying to do the same. Both groups have their bad apples.

Doesn’t “freedom of expression” go both ways? How can a society consider itself “free” if it prosecutes people for their ideas?

Yes, and it can’t, respectively. There’s a saying often misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I can think of few finer sentiments.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

An example of the blind leading the blind. Perhaps you never read what Dignitatis Humanae says,

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.”

And the CCC says:

• 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
• 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Cherry picking aren’t we?

Yes, and my conscience says that the Bishops and Church are off base in their teachings on this. We are allowed freedom of conscience, even more because like I said before this not infallible and has not been declared ex cathedra.

Showing deference and respect to a person who appears to be outcasts to others is one of the things we are called to do. My conscience does not tell me to look down on people. I have shown respect to the bishops for their statement but, as I said it is not (and probably never will be) ex cathedra. This is a passing “issue” of our current times and will fade out as time goes on. The history of the Church has shown it has gone in phases and will continue to go in phases.