Bishop Gumbleton says that Church teaching on the subject of homosexuality is “evil”

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

I have accpeted before, I would certainly welcome Bishop Gumbleton to my diocese, and I think my bishop probably would too, but then again, I would say he is needed more in America.

This bishop is not needed anywhere.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[davy39]

irenaeus1:

This bishop is not needed anywhere.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Exactly! I think we have coined a new phrase here. It’s called a Cafeteria Bishop. He accepts the churches teachings he likes, but the rest he calls “evil”. Yes, we certainly need more like him, to further confuse and alienate people from the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I have accpeted before, I would certainly welcome Bishop Gumbleton to my diocese, and I think my bishop probably would too, but then again, I would say he is needed more in America.

I think the Holy Father is going to leverage +Gumbleton’s talents more effectively than that.

I believe that +Gumbleton’s great familiarity with Global Warming will be now used on an extended ‘fact finding’ Papal mission to McMurdo Station, Antartica

 

[AlanFromWichita]

One man calls Church teachings evil.

Another man levels sarcasm at the Church and her bishops.

None of this bothers me, for I am at peace.

As long as we understand we are all hypocrites and that when we are poking fun at them it is tongue-in-cheek.

Alan

 

[Libero]

This bishop is not needed anywhere.

Of course he is!!! - He is needed by those who would feel that the church shuns them (namely homosexuals nowadays) he shows that they are of equal importance in the church, despite the frequently very insensitive comments by some other bishops.

He reminds us of opening our arms to all. He is not afraid to shy away from the politics, in order to help promote peace (which most certainly is needed now that the western democracies have become so blinded by their own moral correctness).

The bishop is needed in England - in fact anyone who can attract people to the church, and make the church relevant is needed in England - particularly a bishop (no doubt he would go down quite well here with his views on Iraq).

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Of course he is!!! - He is needed by those who would feel that the church shuns them (namely homosexuals nowadays) he shows that they are of equal importance in the church, despite the frequently very insensitive comments by some other bishops.

I have yet to see any ‘insensitive’ comments by other bishops. I have seen nothing but love towards homosexuals from most of the Episcopate.

They love homosexuals enough to help them overcome their disorder through prayer and examples of chastity.

The only one I see NOT loving homosexuals is +Gumbleton. He would rather see them risk their souls in sinful behavior than to lift a finger to help them live as Christ calls them.

The bishop is needed in England - in fact anyone who can attract people to the church, and make the church relevant is needed in England - particularly a bishop (no doubt he would go down quite well here with his views on Iraq).

I wonder what Church +Gumbleton would bring people towards. The work he as done here hasn’t been much to bring people closer to the Pillar of Truth that is the Church, but rather instructs people that the Church teaches evil.

There are plenty of churches around that teach that Catholicism has evil doctrines, a church in union with Rome is not one of them.

 

[Libero]

I have yet to see any ‘insensitive’ comments by other bishops. I have seen nothing but love towards homosexuals from most of the Episcopate.

They love homosexuals enough to help them overcome their disorder through prayer and examples of chastity.

The only one I see NOT loving homosexuals is +Gumbleton. He would rather see them risk their souls in sinful behavior than to lift a finger to help them live as Christ calls them.

Well, I could reel out a list of insensitivity from not only Christians but also Catholics and many bishops regarding insensitivity to homosexuality, but I don’t think it will acheive anything. Perhaps we also have different ideas of love? I am “in love with love” - maybe this permits for why I believe some bishops are insensitive? My standards for love are rather strict…

I beleive H.E. Bshp Gumbleton certainly does love homosexuals, his brother was one too you know.

I wonder what Church +Gumbleton would bring people towards. The work he as done here hasn’t been much to bring people closer to the Pillar of Truth that is the Church, but rather instructs people that the Church teaches evil.

There are plenty of churches around that teach that Catholicism has evil doctrines, a church in union with Rome is not one of them.

Instructs people the church teaches evil, is this not a little OTT? I have highlighted that the bishops comments in the article are actually very true.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The question for the Bishop is whether he loves.

The question for us is whether we love.

That includes whether we love homosexuals or the bishop.

That includes whether we love our neighbors and ourselves.

When we say “this bishop is not needed anywhere” than we have rhetorically aborted him, and such rhetorical comments are heard by heaven as prayers. You say, “this bishop is not needed anywhere” and I hear, “God, please come get your junk out of my way. It is faulty and cannot be repaired, so just make it go away so we so longer have to endure it.”

Whether the man upholds Church teachings is primarily between him and the Church and God. We of course, stand to be harmed and that makes a topic of discussion of his public behavior in office OK, but as far as I’m concerned when we make such entirely dismissive statements about these men – faults or no – then we have crossed the line into evil and judgment ourselves and shall be judged negatively ourselves.

I would think that in our zeal to defend the Church, we don’t risk our own souls. Somehow I don’t think God designed it so that it works that way – unless I’m wrong. Maybe that’s a different kind of martyrdom; instead of giving up your physical life for the Church you give up your eternal life? (“Sorry Jesus, I know you want this bishop-purging done and the Holy Father is not serving you well in this regard, but we hate for you to have to see us doing it.”)

When I speak this, I do it fully admitting I’m a hypocrite. There is one priest in particular I consider destructive to the Church, and I believe the Church would be better off, frankly, if he’d go away somewhere. As long as we all understand that we are playing a game here this is all OK. Meanwhile, we are all sinners so I say none of this as condescending, but as an invitation to many of us to become honest with ourselves. I’m pretty sure I am in danger of hell becasue I haven’t totally given up all my vendettas – and gosh this might even be one of them.

Alan

 

[setter]

The question for the Bishop is whether he loves.

The question for us is whether we love.

That includes whether we love homosexuals or the bishop.

That includes whether we love our neighbors and ourselves.

I would necessarily qualify – “…love with the truth of the gospel”.

When we say “this bishop is not needed anywhere” than we have rhetorically aborted him, and such rhetorical comments are heard by heaven as prayers. You say, “this bishop is not needed anywhere” and I hear, “God, please come get your junk out of my way. It is faulty and cannot be repaired, so just make it go away so we so longer have to endure it.”

Whether the man upholds Church teachings is primarily between him and the Church and God. We of course, stand to be harmed and that makes a topic of discussion of his public behavior in office OK, but as far as I’m concerned when we make such entirely dismissive statements about these men – faults or no – then we have crossed the line into evil and judgment ourselves and shall be judged negatively ourselves.

Alan

I would have the bishop reflect over these scriptures to mend the errors of his ways.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ “Matt. 7:16-20

"Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.” Matt.12:33

“According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw --each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” **1 Cor. 3:10-15 **

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Perhaps we also have different ideas of love? I am “in love with love” - maybe this permits for why I believe some bishops are insensitive? My standards for love are rather strict…

I beleive H.E. Bshp Gumbleton certainly does love homosexuals, his brother was one too you know.

Different ideas of Love?

Mine is where one seeks to help a person leave a self destructive lifestyle.

+Gumbletons is where one affirms the self destructive lifestyle.

Instructs people the church teaches evil, is this not a little OTT? I have highlighted that the bishops comments in the article are actually very true.

Ok maybe I missed it. Please explain how the following comment

Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.” How evil.

 

[Libero]

Ok maybe I missed it. Please explain how the following comment

We cannot simply quote comments without looking at the context, or showing what the author goes on to discuss, that is a manipulation of fact. Many many comments would be misinterpreted if people were to start doing that.

Different ideas of Love?

Mine is where one seeks to help a person leave a self destructive lifestyle.

+Gumbletons is where one affirms the self destructive lifestyle.

I cannot speak for the bishop of this one, but mine is one of loving all unconditionally at an equal level, it is also one where I would wish to establish my love for all, and not just assume it is a given. It is one where my love would not be affected even the slightest by ones sin. Although, as Alan points out, I am a hypocrite - I am a human, this is how I do feel, but often I fall short of actually acheiving this.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I cannot speak for the bishop of this one, but mine is one of loving all unconditionally at an equal level, it is also one where I would wish to establish my love for all, and not just assume it is a given. It is one where my love would not be affected even the slightest by ones sin. Although, as Alan points out, I am a hypocrite - I am a human, this is how I do feel, but often I fall short of actually acheiving this.

No problem with that, in fact that is the love of ALL the Bishops have for homosexuals.

Next question, does loving the person mean loving their actions.

Could one love an alcholic while hating their drunkeness.

And if so, which would be a greater sign of that love,

1. giving them encouragement to live a sober life

or

1. giving them a fifth of Cutty Sark

One loves the person by helping them reform their lives, the other loves the person by encouraging their behavior.

Which one is a greater sign of love?

Would calling alcoholism is a disorder be an uncharitiable act towards one who is an alcoholic?

Would it be untruthful?

 

[Libero]

No problem with that, in fact that is the love of ALL the Bishops have for homosexuals.

Next question, does loving the person mean loving their actions.

Could one love an alcholic while hating their drunkeness.

And if so, which would be a greater sign of that love,

1. giving them encouragement to live a sober life

or

1. giving them a fifth of Cutty Sark

One loves the person by helping them reform their lives, the other loves the person by encouraging their behavior.

Which one is a greater sign of love?

Would calling alcoholism is a disorder be an uncharitiable act towards one who is an alcoholic?

Would it be untruthful?

This all depends to me, it may prove hard to word my feelings on this - so bare with.

I would say that in “hating” ones drunkedness, you are hating a part of that person, and that it would be far better shown in love. Attempting to give them all the support they can.

I do not really want to generalise too much, as we are all different, the assitance some need will be different to the style of assistance that others need. Humans are very volatile beings, frequently we do not understand each other, and those who are deemed to need help, may often interpret what one may consider a message of love, to be exactly the opposite.

Thus, I feel it is wise to extend love - unconditionally, first and foremost, and then, upon having established a good enough relationship with a person, provide assitance in other forms, such as education into religious matters.

I would not want statements and use of scripture, to make one feel unloved, and to remove one from God’s love, I would rather prefer delaying the “correction” period, and simply extending love.

Note, if you don’t get my drift on some matters - which is admitedly likely (poor explanations) please ask for me to elaborate, as opposed to jumping to conclusions. - Thanks

 

[Strider]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 107:
The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Bishop Gumbleton, referenced article:
What happened of course, you know, that as the scriptures were passed down generation after generation, they were written out by hand by scribes and often words would be changed. Particular words for “compassion,” for “pity” and “anger” have the same Greek root and late in the 1500s probably the manuscripts began to show “compassion” instead of “anger,” but the original word was “anger.” Jesus was angry. Probably scribes thought, “That’s not a good thing to say about Jesus – he got angry. No, it would be better to say he was compassionate. Everybody would accept that.”

This man is a consecrated bishop of the Catholic Church; therefore, he is a direct successor to one of the apostles by the laying on of hands.
Yet he teaches, publicly, against dogma (see above) and doctrine, homosexual activity is to be accepted.
I am sick and tired of men who have the absolute honor and blessing and responsibility of being in this position and spouting their own ideas in direct opposition to that which they’ve given a covenant to uphold!
If one of my grandsons informed me he is a homosexual, I would continue to love him. But, as others have intimated above, if I told him, “That’s okay. You just give in to your desires, I mean, after it is love,” I would be doing more harm to him (his immortal soul), than if I’d given him a gallon can of gasoline and a lighter to play with when he was four years old because that’s what he felt “drawn to.”
So what, besides prayer, is to be done with ths man who is doing incalculably more harm, because of his pulpit, than I could ever do?
I have no answer. I’m beyond fury.

 

[fix]

Libero:

This all depends to me, it may prove hard to word my feelings on this - so bare with.

I would say that in “hating” ones drunkedness, you are hating a part of that person, and that it would be far better shown in love. Attempting to give them all the support they can.

I do not really want to generalise too much, as we are all different, the assitance some need will be different to the style of assistance that others need. Humans are very volatile beings, frequently we do not understand each other, and those who are deemed to need help, may often interpret what one may consider a message of love, to be exactly the opposite.

Thus, I feel it is wise to extend love - unconditionally, first and foremost, and then, upon having established a good enough relationship with a person, provide assitance in other forms, such as education into religious matters.

I would not want statements and use of scripture, to make one feel unloved, and to remove one from God’s love, I would rather prefer delaying the “correction” period, and simply extending love.

Note, if you don’t get my drift on some matters - which is admitedly likely (poor explanations) please ask for me to elaborate, as opposed to jumping to conclusions. - Thanks

The problem is we must first have a correct understanding of love, compassion and truth. Too often we confuse the true definitions of these words with secular notions.

 

[Libero]

The problem is we must first have a correct understanding of love, compassion and truth. Too often we confuse the true definitions of these words with secular notions.

But who do we know who to trust?

Church officials refuse to agree, many doctrines are not a completely true representation of God.

Love is a human emotion, it comes from humans, we should be able to recognise it ourselves. Do we really need someone else to define it?

 

[fix]

Libero:

But who do we know who to trust?

The Church

Church officials refuse to agree, many doctrines are not a completely true representation of God.

That some rejct the teachings really is not the issue.

Love is a human emotion, it comes from humans, we should be able to recognise it ourselves. Do we really need someone else to define it?

Yes, love is more than an emotion.

 

[Libero]

The Church

I was prepared to bet extremely large amounts of money that you would say that

 

[fix]

Libero:

I was prepared to bet extremely large amounts of money that you would say that

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

 

[Strider]

Libero:

But who do we know who to trust?

Church officials refuse to agree, many doctrines are not a completely true representation of God.

Love is a human emotion, it comes from humans, we should be able to recognise it ourselves. Do we really need someone else to define it?

For one and two, read the Catechism. Then read it again. Then read it again. Then…

“Love is a human emotion.”?
You really have some studying to do. First the Bible, then the Greeks. Which “love” are you talking about?
It doesn’t matter. All love is from God.