Belgian Bishop Accused of Homophobia

[CreosMary]

These “hate crime laws” are becoming a real threat to free speech and right to belief. We could support this Bishop my emailing his diocese maybe?
Here in Melbourne the anti-discrimination laws have gone full circle with a homosexual pub been given the right to (ban) refuse entry to Heterosexuals, this with the state governments approval. I wonder what would happen if a Catholic bar owner applied to have his bar Catholic only and homosexuals were banned…?

 

[goofyjim]

These “hate crime laws” are becoming a real threat to free speech and right to belief. We could support this Bishop my emailing his diocese maybe?
Here in Melbourne the anti-discrimination laws have gone full circle with a homosexual pub been given the right to (ban) refuse entry to Heterosexuals, this with the state governments approval. I wonder what would happen if a Catholic bar owner applied to have his bar Catholic only and homosexuals were banned…?

Hasn’t that already happened with the eHarmony case? And don’t many Christian colleges retain the right to evict a student who is homosexual, even before they are in a relationship? It’s a two way street. Christians should be able to say what they want on the topic but so should homosexuals. Otherwise we become a theocracy and not a democracy.

 

[CreosMary]

Fortunately there is a world outside of America, and in our part of it No school, or any institution can ban on the grounds of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. However as I mentioned it is working the other way, against traditional society

 

[Wolseley]

I’m going to risk my status in Catholic forums here by stating that I am offended that ‘NewUlm1976_2000’ is allowed to post his heretical, dangerous views while purportedly stating that he/she is Catholic.

Merely a reflection of the now-deceased uber-liberal Bishop Raymond Lucker, whose decidedly heterodox views can be read on the link in NewUlm’s profile page.

I’d wager he probably thinks Bishop John Nienstedt is the devil incarnate.

To the rest of the people here in this thread, the only thing I can say is that you can try all you like to reason with ‘NewUlm’ but his/her mind is made up and will not listen.

So save your breath and energy on something else.

I’d reached that conclusion myself, and it sounds like good advice.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Please do not discuss other members. If you have a problem, use the Bad Post Report feature. This thread will be closed if it continues off topic.

 

[Catholig]

Well, I guess that does it for every non-Catholic family out there

No, not really. I did say “against the bible”. Most Christians, even if not entirely agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church don’t oppose the bible. That isn’t too say that they don’t commit bad sins (e.g. birth control), however - while not any spiritually different than homosexual acts - don’t affect young children in quite the same way as growing up in a homosexual home. I say this because while the children may eventually engage in these practices it isn’t a rejection of Christ. It is just a result of them not growing up in a home that teaches the entire truth. On the positive side though it alows for conversion to the Catholic Church having already instilled many good values such as belief in the bible, belief in morals, belief in god, and belief in Christ.

A homosexual couple cannot instill these values - or they do in an ackward way having already shown that it is alright to “pick and choose” which parts of the bible are valid. And outright ignoring those bits which they as individuals deem wrong.

Besides that as long as one has not denied Christ he can still get into heaven.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

Please do not discuss other members. If you have a problem, use the Bad Post Report feature. This thread will be closed if it continues off topic.

I hope that does not mean that we cannot discuss morality & homosexuality in general as we have been doing. I mean - it is hard to talk simply about the bishop & what has happened against him.

Catholig

 

[CreosMary]

Rather than the sin of homosexuality itself, I feel the real issue here is that the homosexual lobby is at the stage where they are imposing their “rights” at the expense of the majority. Political correctness gone mad and as has been said the time will come when evil will be seen as good and good seen as evil.
Homosexual persons (as per the catechism) should not be discriminated against but supported to live a virtuous life as all a called to be, but the activity should not be endorsed as normal or positive.
God Bless

 

[Bennie_P]

Being gay does not ‘cause’ these behaviors, that’s the problem. You’re mistaking a correlation (and an exaggerated one, at that) for causation.

True but these behaviors are found in high numbers within the so called “gay” community, so if being 'gay" doesn’t cause these other behaviors, and these other behaviors doesn’t cause one to be “gay” then the inabilitiy to make sound and moral choices must be a factor in acting act in a homosexual manner. I wonder what causes “gay” people not to be able to make sound moral choices? Is it they bought into the lie that if the eat the forbidden fruit they will be like God or gods? And why do those that live an active homosexual lifestyle average life span range lies somewhere from the late 30s to early 40s? Even if you don’t consider it immoral, you should be able to see something wrong here? Or is homophobia causing ‘Gay’ people to die so young?

‘Doing drugs makes you gay!’ I don’t even know what to say to that – it’s on the same level as the soy scare a few months back.

You don’t have to say anything because that is not quite what I said, but I knew you would take it that way. But **doing drugs will let you drop you’re resistance to do immoral acts. and other stupid actions. Making the free will choice to do immoral acts realated to homosexual activity is what is wrong. The only thing that makes one wrong is chosing to do what is unnatural and immoral. **

I don’t even consider homosexuality ‘wrong’.

How can homosexual sex be right if it isn’t healthy, nor gives you very good outlook for a long and happy life? It doesn’t create life and those that act out on thier SSA condemns themselves to unhappy and usually very short lives.

So, I guess post-menopausal heterosexual sex is just mutual masturbation, as is sex in which one or both partners is naturally or accidentally barren/sterile? Sorry, not buying it. The unitive purpose of sex is not bound up entirely to the procreative, even according to the RCC, and an inability concerning the second does not necessarily affect the first.

**Here your trying to mix apples and oranges and you know it. This is the way jr. high schools kids think. You should have more respect for yourself then to present this sophomoric counter argument.:tsktsk: **

**Besides the thread is about the suppression of Freedom of Speech, so please try to stay focused on that issue. - And once again the “gay rights” movement tried to change the subject and focus of the discussion. **

 

[Bennie_P]

Rather than the sin of homosexuality itself, I feel the real issue here is that the homosexual lobby is at the stage where they are imposing their “rights” at the expense of the majority. Political correctness gone mad and as has been said the time will come when evil will be seen as good and good seen as evil.
Homosexual persons (as per the catechism) should not be discriminated against but supported to live a virtuous life as all a called to be, but the activity should not be endorsed as normal or positive.
God Bless

You are so correct, thanks for trying to bring the thread back on focus.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Since you chose to ignore my post above, I’ll only repeat what I said there: ex cathedra is not the only form an infallible teaching of the Church can take, and infallibility was around from day one—it wasn’t “invented” in 1870, no matter how much you might want it to be so you can feel better about ignoring whichever infallible teachings you don’t happen to like.

Who are led by an infallible Holy Spirit.

Unless, of course, you’re advocating that the Holy Spirit isn’t infallible. Or, more likely you’re advocating that the Magesterium isn’t led by the Holy Spirit, but that your own personal conscience is. Gotcha.

Homosexual “marriage” isn’t a cause, it’s a symptom. It’s an example of the rapidly decaying moral climate in most of the West, and the fact that this topic even exists and is actually being debated is ample evidence of that. Along with all of the other myriad problems that have arisen in our post-Christian society, it’s just one more proof that we have completely lost our bearings and are going down the tubes.

There is nothing new in this. Societies, cultures, even entire civilizations have reached the point where we are now; we have ceased to grow and are instead living off the still-warm corpse of our own society, and comfort, affluence, and hedonism are the most important things—the “right” of every citizen—to the vast majority of the population. The unfortunate part is that when a society has become corrupt, fat, lazy, apathetic, fragmented, and morally bankrupt, they are always replaced by another culture that is vibrant, hard, adheres to a high religious and or/moral system, and is unified in their ultimate vision.

When Western Europe and the USA/Canada are both replaced in next 50 to 100 years or so by Islamic Caliphates, remember that.

I find it amusing, in light of the other things you advocate, that you would invoke Catholic theology to strengthen marriage. I find it likewise telling that you appear to confuse theology with the ever-trendy “social justice” theme that is the fave of progressives everywhere.

There are other differences as well…a vastly increased probability for anal cancer, HIV, chlamydia trachomatis, viral hepatitis, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, intestinal infections, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobia, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and promiscuity among them.

Do they look for similarities in the ongoing mortal sins of their “guardians” and the ongoing mortal sins of others, do you suppose?

Where you encounter multiple interpretations, it is always safest to adhere to the one put forth by the Church. The Church is, after all, led by the Holy Spirit, while we, all too often, are not.

But then, you don’t agree with that, do you?

“Gotcha”? Is that all this has come down too? I am no supposed to respond to every post right away. Settle down.

You mentioned this form of infallibility which is still a grey area but lets look at the late Bishop Lucker’s April 1994 Pastoral Letter. He brings up three things (though there are probably more), salvation is only possible through the RCC, sexism in the church, and religious liberty. Those were considered “infallible” by the standards at the time but changed over time. I am viewing this issue in the same way (future-centric). In the future (generation or two), teachings will change as the church re-evaluates its stances. And none of these changes would have taken place if someone in the church had not raised debate on all these. So even “infallible” teachings have been debated then which lead the Bishops to eventually recommend changing them.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Merely a reflection of the now-deceased uber-liberal Bishop Raymond Lucker, whose decidedly heterodox views can be read on the link in NewUlm’s profile page.

I’d wager he probably thinks Bishop John Nienstedt is the devil incarnate.

I’d reached that conclusion myself, and it sounds like good advice.

“Uber-liberal” to some. This will be my only response to this. Lucker presented an open-minded and more of a pastoral approach. Nienstedt’s approach is different, a more “by-the-book” Bishop. The only way to thrive if both styles of bishops work together. You cannot just have an admistrative and a pastoral but you need both.

That last comment did cross an unfair line.

 

[AlexV]

The late prelate in question left behind ample evidence of his views. He liked to write, speak, and broadcast his views.

 

[bones_IV]

“Uber-liberal” to some. This will be my only response to this. Lucker presented an open-minded and more of a pastoral approach. Nienstedt’s approach is different, a more “by-the-book” Bishop. The only way to thrive if both styles of bishops work together. You cannot just have an admistrative and a pastoral but you need both.

That last comment did cross an unfair line.

And you proclaiming yourself to be Catholic while advocating homosexual unions is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[childofmary1143]

“Uber-liberal” to some. This will be my only response to this. Lucker presented an open-minded and more of a pastoral approach. Nienstedt’s approach is different, a more “by-the-book” Bishop. The only way to thrive if both styles of bishops work together. You cannot just have an admistrative and a pastoral but you need both.

That last comment did cross an unfair line.

Lucker attended Call to Action Conventions. If membership with SSPX is enough to get excommunicated in Nebraska then surely Lucker would be with his association with Call to Action.

 

[Catholig]

“Gotcha”? Is that all this has come down too? I am no supposed to respond to every post right away. Settle down.

You mentioned this form of infallibility which is still a grey area but lets look at the late Bishop Lucker’s April 1994 Pastoral Letter. He brings up three things (though there are probably more), salvation is only possible through the RCC, sexism in the church, and religious liberty. Those were considered “infallible” by the standards at the time but changed over time. I am viewing this issue in the same way (future-centric). In the future (generation or two), teachings will change as the church re-evaluates its stances. And none of these changes would have taken place if someone in the church had not raised debate on all these. So even “infallible” teachings have been debated then which lead the Bishops to eventually recommend changing them.

Mind giving an example of any infallible teaching being “changed”?

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

I will first start with “If you are unfaithful to the magisterium then you are unfaithful to God” part. This is unrealistic in day to society and in the Church. This comes down to church history in where “infallibly”/ex cathedra was not even around before 1870 and it was an insult to say anyone can never make mistakes. The Magisterium is a group of fallible men, just like the rest of us. The interpretation of ex cathedra was still to make a very high bar to allow issues to be discussed and debated as Catholic Theology has always changed over times and will continue to change with the times. Our talents are to interpret the statements to the best of our ability and raise questions to improve the life in and outside of the institution of the Church.

While they may be fallible men, they can make infallible statements when assembled together in a council. And while the doctrine of papal infallibility “was not even around before 1870” the capacity has always existed. Also while I can’t find it I heard that my Patron Saint - St. Francis de Sales basically proposed papal infallibility in his writings.

In any case I would like to bring it to your attention once more - scripture is infallible. The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Therefore that statement is infallible.

How are they really “undermining the family”? I have heard this statement many hundreds of times and I never see it in life. Marriages (church and civil) continue to happen, people continue to procreate and reproduce. Marriages fail for the usual reasons we see (finances, communication, etc…). I have never heard of one marriage fail because of what another couple (same or different gender preferences) does. This is a scapegoating with respect to how marriages fail in real life.

Well I didn’t exactly say “undermining the family” - I said “undermining the purpose of the family”. This purpose being to be a “domestic church” in which good morals are instilled into the children, and ultimately to lead every member of that family to heaven. It is not to say that if homosexuals get “civil union”-d they’d be no more marriages - simply that it is contrary to the purpose of marriage for them to do so, and that it projects a false image of what marriage is about. More of a hedonist, lovers-of-self kind of view which ignores the bible, and the Church.

How should we focus on making marriages stronger? Well, lets look at other parts of Catholic Theology. One is the church has always wanted good and fair wages for workers (sometimes that includes a union model). This push for job security helps all family models in society (better finances, increased vacation and time away from work to spend with family, etc…). Charitable works is another, in that not only does it get the family out of the house, it also bonds them together as a cohesive group and increases communication, reduces stress, etc… It is an external and internal form of solidarity towards others.

Uhhmmm, none of this matters. You can be the richest person in the world and still have a bad marriage. The point is that we acknowledge it as a sacrament, and love each member enough to set a good example so as to guide everyone to heaven.

-----Continued in Next Post-----

 

[Catholig]

The only difference between people with same-gender preference and those who do not have it is just who they share their love and affection for. The rest of their personal makeup follows along the same lines of the rest of society, both the good and bad. They are more than able to raise good, loving, and spiritual children. We need to give children much more credit in these discussions than is usually given (a weakness of aging I guess). Children to not divide on differences, they look for similarities.

The bible is of course just one of the many things we as Catholic use, and as you can see with the rest of the board there are as many interpretations and focuses as there have been people on the planet.

Nope, they cannot rase spiritual children, and they are basically commiting a mortal sin in their life style.

Please show me how these bible passages can be interpreted otherwise.

And while you are at it show me one officially declared saint - not necessarily a doctor of the church like the two I cited that you ignored - who supported homosexuality in his writings and interepreted these verses in any other way.

Oh yeah, and you can also explain how the holy spirit would allow the entire church to be in error concerning this point for at least 1500 years.

And since you seem to think that homosexuals should be married in the church - why god would allow them to be denied this for all those year?

Can you show me the reason you reject Aquinas’ Natural Law out right, when it was placed on the table next to the bible (having been contained within the Summa) at the Council of Trent?

Catholig