- Status
V
VanSensei
Guest
Sigh. Again, people have completely mutilated the meaning of the word “anti-gay”, which much to many people’s chagrin, does not equate to being against any proposed redefinition of marriage.
If the Catholic Church were anywhere close to “anti-gay”, they would be trying to incriminate on homosexuals for the sole reason that they are homosexual, despite their personal or moral character. Defending traditional marriage is not that. If it is what they believe is just, then they can do as they please.
If the Catholic Church were anywhere close to “anti-gay”, they would be trying to incriminate on homosexuals for the sole reason that they are homosexual, despite their personal or moral character. Defending traditional marriage is not that. If it is what they believe is just, then they can do as they please.
C
CatholicHockey7
Guest
It’s sad that this is completely true not just of the Church, but of Christianity in general.
My opinion is the popular issues of abortion and same-sex “marriage” are causing many to no longer identify themselves as Christians out of fear of being judged.
From the very beginning, the PR machines for both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage lobbies has done an excellent job painting the message of the Church as one of fear and hatred. When the Church HAS been able to get the message out, the other side turns it into a church and state issue end effectively negates anything the Church contributes to the discussion.
My opinion is the popular issues of abortion and same-sex “marriage” are causing many to no longer identify themselves as Christians out of fear of being judged.
From the very beginning, the PR machines for both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage lobbies has done an excellent job painting the message of the Church as one of fear and hatred. When the Church HAS been able to get the message out, the other side turns it into a church and state issue end effectively negates anything the Church contributes to the discussion.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
It’s the same progressive formula with race and gender.
–If you don’t like Obama’s polices, you’re a racist cause he’s “Black”.
–If you don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception, you hate women.
So is it really that surprising to folks that this has taken shape?
Because if it is, we’re pretty far behind…
E
Elizium23
Guest
I think part of the problem is that there are some people, and it may be a small minority, but nonetheless a noticeable portion of people who are Catholic and are virulently anti-homosexual. Many homosexual people have personally had bad experiences with people from the Church who have been too judgemental or ostracized them or ridiculed them because of a particular variety of an unpopular sin. And that is bad for the reputation of the whole organization. The Church tries to steer a middle course where the sin is condemned yet the person is loved and accepted. Extremists ruin it for everybody.
Homosexuals react to the Church somewhat like a spoiled child reacts to a parent’s denial. It is the reaction of someone who is used to getting what he wants, and not being able to get it this time. It leads me to question whether this is the reaction of someone who is truly persecuted by this institution or whether it is simply the fact that the Church is the last bastion holding out against a secularist agenda to destroy the family.
This PR task is not for bishops to decide in their ivory towers. This PR task is for the people on the ground to start showing love and meaning it. It is doubly difficult now that we are on the losing end of battles in the culture wars, that we can look up at the victors and show them selfless love and respect their human dignity. But that is our only choice if we choose to call ourselves Christians. Homosexuals are the ones who endured hate and intolerance and bullying because of what they did, and now Christians are going to endure the same persecutions because of what we believe, and because of payback. We have to show that Christianity is not a faith of intolerant bullying but one where Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Homosexuals react to the Church somewhat like a spoiled child reacts to a parent’s denial. It is the reaction of someone who is used to getting what he wants, and not being able to get it this time. It leads me to question whether this is the reaction of someone who is truly persecuted by this institution or whether it is simply the fact that the Church is the last bastion holding out against a secularist agenda to destroy the family.
This PR task is not for bishops to decide in their ivory towers. This PR task is for the people on the ground to start showing love and meaning it. It is doubly difficult now that we are on the losing end of battles in the culture wars, that we can look up at the victors and show them selfless love and respect their human dignity. But that is our only choice if we choose to call ourselves Christians. Homosexuals are the ones who endured hate and intolerance and bullying because of what they did, and now Christians are going to endure the same persecutions because of what we believe, and because of payback. We have to show that Christianity is not a faith of intolerant bullying but one where Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
M
mexolic
Guest
It’s sad that many of the faithful have been intimidated into silence. What is happening today doesn’t surprise me. The Bible and prophesies from Our Lady warned us of what was to come.
S
ssancho
Guest
That’s what persecution is like. :sad_yes: Perhaps, if anything good comes of it, it will be a more faithful USAmerican Church. I’m reminded of a story someone told me about a Hungarian seminarian in the US during the Cold War. This seminarian reflected that USAmericans had gone soft in our attitude towards the faith and that “what [we] need is a good persecution to weed out the unbelievers.”
I agree with most of what you say, but we should all remember that it is not love to approve of (or even tolerate) dangerous, self-destructive behavior such as sodomy. Yes, that’s right; dangerous and self-destructive. I personally knew of someone who was deceived into contracting AIDS by a same-sex partner who insisted the behavior was “safe.”
T
Trader
Guest
One of the most useful things I have learned from Catholic apologetics is that the Church is only against something because it is first, FOR something. I think that is what Cardinal Dolan was saying.
The problem is that the world has been chipping away from what was once the universal understanding of marriage for centuries and now even many Catholics do not understand or accept what the Church has taught about marriage since St Augustine explained what the Church already believed around 400 AD.
The Church is FOR a relationship between equals that is faithful, permanent, and open to new life; that has been called marriage for many centuries before the time of Jesus. It binds parents and children together as the basic building block of any society for the common good. Jesus took an existing good institution and elevated it to be one of the seven ordinary means by which he shares his own divine life with us.
Marriage has been under attack since Luther and other Protestant “reformers” denied the sacramental nature of marriage and Henry VIII chose divorce when he could not obtain the annulment he wanted. It was only around 1930 when the first Protestant groups chose to allow contraception and broke the essential connection between marriage and procreation. Once that happened society rapidly degraded the marital relationship to the current sex with anyone or anything at anytime for any reason.
I expect that the Catholic participants on this forum are better informed than the average person who considers attending Mass a few times per year to be acceptable, but what percent of those who self-identify as Catholic could name Augustine’s three goods of marriage?
So no one is embarrassed, they are fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. Same sex relationships can never meet those three requirements for a valid marriage.
The problem is that the world has been chipping away from what was once the universal understanding of marriage for centuries and now even many Catholics do not understand or accept what the Church has taught about marriage since St Augustine explained what the Church already believed around 400 AD.
The Church is FOR a relationship between equals that is faithful, permanent, and open to new life; that has been called marriage for many centuries before the time of Jesus. It binds parents and children together as the basic building block of any society for the common good. Jesus took an existing good institution and elevated it to be one of the seven ordinary means by which he shares his own divine life with us.
Marriage has been under attack since Luther and other Protestant “reformers” denied the sacramental nature of marriage and Henry VIII chose divorce when he could not obtain the annulment he wanted. It was only around 1930 when the first Protestant groups chose to allow contraception and broke the essential connection between marriage and procreation. Once that happened society rapidly degraded the marital relationship to the current sex with anyone or anything at anytime for any reason.
I expect that the Catholic participants on this forum are better informed than the average person who considers attending Mass a few times per year to be acceptable, but what percent of those who self-identify as Catholic could name Augustine’s three goods of marriage?
So no one is embarrassed, they are fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. Same sex relationships can never meet those three requirements for a valid marriage.
E
Elizium23
Guest
I tolerate all kinds of sin all the time. My list of friends would be very small if I broke ties with everyone who admitted a sin. As Christians we need to accept people, and be there for them, despite their sin, because the sin does not make the man.
I have a friend from high school who is in a homosexual “marriage”. I forged a friendship just this week with someone else is is in a lesbian “marriage” and I have much in common with both of them. Now, anyone who knows me on these forums knows my stance on homosexualism and how I can rant against it. However, I do not take this stance in the presence of my friends. They are well aware of my opinions in the matter and my faith as a Catholic, and I am crystal clear on their opposition to these things. But the subject just doesn’t come up in polite conversation. I accept them as friends, and to me that means not preaching against something in which they obstinately persist. It is worth more to me to have them as a friend and to preach with my actions that I am a righteous person who is willing to share my faith and what God has done with me.
I am friends with these people because there is little difference between them and me. I am the one who has accepted God and the Church back into my life (both of them were born and raised Catholic.) I have explained a lot about how lost I was when I left the Church, the lifestyle I led was leading to dissolution and despair. It is vital for homosexuals to see someone like me who has been transformed by embracing the sacramental life of the Church and the redemption of Christ on the Cross. I remain a lowly sinner, and I still endure punishment for my past sins. That is always on my mind. But if all three of us keep on these paths unto death, only one of us will enjoy eternal life, and it pains me that my friends would die such a death. I am even more concerned for some of my own family members who have left the Church for other reasons, that they deny themselves the joy and freedom of a Christian life. But sometimes the only thing we can do is pray. Preaching is well and good but we must go beyond words and make our parish into that city on a hill that shines as a beacon for all to see.
S
ssancho
Guest
I admit, I didn’t see things that way. I apologize. I was in a less-than-dignified emotional state when I wrote what I wrote.
After consideration (now that I’ve had a chance to cool off), I think it best to do as you seem to be doing, treating these people like Rachel’s Vineyard treats women who have had abortions–absolutely refusing to condone the sin, but building a loving relationship with the person, whose needs so often get lost in the debate.
M
Maxirad
Guest
Are gays and lesbians really that put off by the word “homosexual” in this day and age?
S
Slavonic
Guest
Yes, because of it’s past association with mental disorders and generally ‘clinical’ connotation.
M
mikekle
Guest
I agree, I can see hints of my local parish has gone soft, or better to say, they knowingly avoid certain topics, IMO, true believers need to stand up for what God considers to be right, whether or not that is currently ‘popular’ or not in the secular world should make no difference.
A person is either worshiping God and doing what he thinks is right, or worshiping society, cannot do both, and cannot make everyone happy and content, there will always be groups of people that feel they are getting the short end of the stick, and deserve more.I see this in the gay community hiring lawyers to fight for their equal rights LOL
I think when God comes back alot of people are going to be shocked at some of the things he does, I think he will destroy the homosexual community and condemn all of them, plus I think he will condemn all who sat on the fence because they were scared of being arrested or worrying what others will think of them, etc.
Once gay marriage becomes legally protected in the federal sense, there will be nothing stopping one of them to request a marriage in a catholic church, and it scares me to think what will happen when law enforcement and the courts side with the gay people on this…we are in for a wild ride!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
“Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution…therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted…Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home…The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents…And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions…” - Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Atheistic CommunismIt’s the same progressive formula with race and gender.
–If you don’t like Obama’s polices, you’re a racist cause he’s “Black”.
–If you don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception, you hate women.
So is it really that surprising to folks that this has taken shape?
Because if it is, we’re pretty far behind…
S
SMGS127
Guest
I agree up to here. But then when you get into…
I disagree; I think that each individual person will be judged based on the nature of their hearts and the culpability of their sins. If the entire homosexual community, including those gays & lesbians who remain celibate, or even just the actively homosexual community, would be immediately smote, the Church would not teach that we do not know if any individual goes to hell. We do not know their state in life, and we do not know in what spiritual state they died in necessarily. We only know that an actively immoral person, whether by homosexuality or contraception or promiscuity or adultery or abortion (or idolatry or any other inherently mortal sin), is more likely to be at risk of eternal torment. What you said is a very blanket statement that shows very little charity for the souls of those you speak so callously about losing to hell.
This is an unfounded fear; we have the First Amendment, and every gay “marriage” bill has wording WRITTEN INTO THE BILL, oftentimes at the encouragement of pro-LGBT congresspeople, that protects any church from having to ever perform a marriage between two people it believes cannot or should not be married.
T
Trigonometric
Guest
How long has the HHS mandate to provide contraception been around? Even if it’s eventually overturned, look how long it took to do so. The First Amendment is, sadly, no guarantee of safety.
C
CatholicHockey7
Guest
Agreed. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press, but what that exactly means has never been clearly defined despite dozens of court cases.
Lately people seem to forget just because we have these rights doesn’t mean they are limitless. “You have the right to freedom of speech, but you don’t have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theater.”
S
SMGS127
Guest
First, I believe that the Supreme Court will strike down the HHS mandate.
Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that gay “marriage” bills, at least in the US, include specific, unwavering exemptions that no person or entity can be forced to preside over a gay “marriage” or provide the location for a gay “marriage” or reception. Many of these are done with encouragement of the sponsors of the bill to showcase they have no interest in forcing religious to do anything by instilling protections with force of law.
S
SeannyM
Guest
Just because the church doesn’t seek to criminalize homosexuality doesn’t mean they aren’t anti-gay. Religious belief is great, and the church should be free to teach whatever they want… They become anti-gay when they actively campaign against gay people’s rights. That is definitely anti-gay.
E
Elizium23
Guest
What “rights”? Sin has no rights.
The Church campaigns for positive things. The Church campaigns to uphold traditional marriage and that naturally excludes other types of things that are just plain not marriage. The Church would oppose it if men wanted to marry sheep too but the Church is not anti-sheep.
The Church is standing up for the rights of the family and the protection thereof. The family is an essential part of society, without which we would cease to exist. Homosexual relationships are not an essential part of society; quite the reverse. They are a corrosive, destructive factor in human culture. Contrary to the natural law, a misuse of God’s gifts, and bottom line, not a fertile union. We have been created male and female, as sexual beings because God intends us to procreate. The Church recognizes this moral imperative and builds the family to that end.
The traditional family is bound together in love and an image of the Holy Trinity. In order to understand the family you must understand Sacred Scripture, in particular the Book of Revelation. Revelation shows us the wedding feast of the Lamb. Christ is the bridegroom of His Church and their mystical marriage is the model for all married couples. The Church is a uniquely fruitful bride whose members are adopted through baptism. Therefore it is the Church which understands the indispensibility of the family unit in society and it is the Church which must defend the concept of family from attacks by secularism, relativism, and Population Control adherents.
It is pure caricature to say that the Church is anti-gay simply because she opposes the redefinition of marriage and family. The Church’s own teaching on homosexuality is right there in the Catechism, and the Catholics I know live out that teaching in their daily lives and do not have an anti-gay bone in their bodies.
The Church campaigns for positive things. The Church campaigns to uphold traditional marriage and that naturally excludes other types of things that are just plain not marriage. The Church would oppose it if men wanted to marry sheep too but the Church is not anti-sheep.
The Church is standing up for the rights of the family and the protection thereof. The family is an essential part of society, without which we would cease to exist. Homosexual relationships are not an essential part of society; quite the reverse. They are a corrosive, destructive factor in human culture. Contrary to the natural law, a misuse of God’s gifts, and bottom line, not a fertile union. We have been created male and female, as sexual beings because God intends us to procreate. The Church recognizes this moral imperative and builds the family to that end.
The traditional family is bound together in love and an image of the Holy Trinity. In order to understand the family you must understand Sacred Scripture, in particular the Book of Revelation. Revelation shows us the wedding feast of the Lamb. Christ is the bridegroom of His Church and their mystical marriage is the model for all married couples. The Church is a uniquely fruitful bride whose members are adopted through baptism. Therefore it is the Church which understands the indispensibility of the family unit in society and it is the Church which must defend the concept of family from attacks by secularism, relativism, and Population Control adherents.
It is pure caricature to say that the Church is anti-gay simply because she opposes the redefinition of marriage and family. The Church’s own teaching on homosexuality is right there in the Catechism, and the Catholics I know live out that teaching in their daily lives and do not have an anti-gay bone in their bodies.
- Status