Catholic cardinal: Church 'caricatured' as anti-gay

[SuperLuigi]

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.

There was already a law review written saying religious institutions should be forced to comply because it could start an avalanche to erode “equality”.

You’ve got some good things to say on here, but make sure you don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes on this.

People are using the gay rights issue to press their own twisted agendas in all sorts of ways.

Believe me, they won’t stop with “two consenting adults” in a civil “marriage”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Well, what they are doing with the HHS mandate is saying “you’re not a Church, you’re a health provider, so religious exemptions don’t count.”

Listen, I like your direct, simple approach, but it doesn’t even begin to explain the nonsense that goes on in the legal world.

Just look at the photography and bakery businesses. They are told by the government they have to do business with people they don’t want to. And the gay rights movement responds by basically saying have a cake or picture taken from a certain person (cause you know there’s so few ) is a right.

And naturally, the gay couple, instead of enjoying their supposed “great, true love” go on a quest to punish the business using the courts.

 

[MacBP]

Dr. Kreeft points out that society has great difficulty distinguishing what we are with what we do. You aren’t a person who happens to be a doctor, you are a doctor. You aren’t a person who happens to be a garbage man, you are a garbage man. In the case of homosexuality, you aren’t someone who happens to be homosexual: you are homosexuality. For most people, this makes it impossible to give any criticism of homosexuality without criticizing people.

The vast majority of Western Society does not make the distinction between the person and the sin; consequently, the fact that others might think this way seems incomprehensible. When the Catholic Church says she loves those with SSA and hates SSA, most people think she’s spouting nonsense.

Until people can accept that this distinction is possible (a distinction that has been widely ignored throughout human history), they will assume the Catholic Church is anti-gay. Simple as that.

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.

I think that you haven’t thought this statement through.

I don’t know too many Catholics who enjoy defending Church teaching on homosexuality. Quite honestly: it’s lousy. If I didn’t have to, I wouldn’t. I would gladly never speak about the subject again and let everyone do whatever they want (be that homosexuality or anything else the Church considers to be sinful).

But would that be a decision made out of love? No! It would be one made out of apathy (at best).

We know that a person’s greatest good is to be united with God in the beatific vision. We know that sin damages a person’s relationship with God, and through the teachings of the Church (and scripture, and tradition) we know that homosexual activity is sinful. Now, the Church wants everyone to be happy, and to some extent homosexual activity will do that. That happiness, however, pales in comparison to that of the beatific vision.

If love is to want, will, and work for the good of the other person, then if a Catholic truly loves a person with same-sex attraction that Catholic will try to unite that person with God. That Catholic will hate anything separates that person from God, because that “thing” is denying them the happiness of the beatific vision.And so the maximally loving thing for a Catholic to do is not to keep-on-keeping-on, but to trying to turn that person away from a lesser happiness towards a greater happiness. The fact that the Catholic has to do this when faced with hatred, scorn, and some mild persecution doesn’t make this any less an act of love (to the contrary, it makes their effort more loving).

 

[Trader]

Dr. Kreeft points out that society has great difficulty distinguishing what we are with what we do. You aren’t a person who happens to be a doctor, you are a doctor. You aren’t a person who happens to be a garbage man, you are a garbage man. In the case of homosexuality, you aren’t someone who happens to be homosexual: you are homosexuality. For most people, this makes it impossible to give any criticism of homosexuality without criticizing people.

The vast majority of Western Society does not make the distinction between the person and the sin; consequently, the fact that others might think this way seems incomprehensible. When the Catholic Church says she loves those with SSA and hates SSA, most people think she’s spouting nonsense.

Until people can accept that this distinction is possible (a distinction that has been widely ignored throughout human history), they will assume the Catholic Church is anti-gay. Simple as that.

I think that you haven’t thought this statement through.

I don’t know too many Catholics who enjoy defending Church teaching on homosexuality. Quite honestly: it’s lousy. If I didn’t have to, I wouldn’t. I would gladly never speak about the subject again and let everyone do whatever they want (be that homosexuality or anything else the Church considers to be sinful).

But would that be a decision made out of love? No! It would be one made out of apathy (at best).

We know that a person’s greatest good is to be united with God in the beatific vision. We know that sin damages a person’s relationship with God, and through the teachings of the Church (and scripture, and tradition) we know that homosexual activity is sinful. Now, the Church wants everyone to be happy, and to some extent homosexual activity will do that. That happiness, however, pales in comparison to that of the beatific vision.

If love is to want, will, and work for the good of the other person, then if a Catholic truly loves a person with same-sex attraction that Catholic will try to unite that person with God. That Catholic will hate anything separates that person from God, because that “thing” is denying them the happiness of the beatific vision.And so the maximally loving thing for a Catholic to do is not to keep-on-keeping-on, but to trying to turn that person away from a lesser happiness towards a greater happiness. The fact that the Catholic has to do this when faced with hatred, scorn, and some mild persecution doesn’t make this any less an act of love (to the contrary, it makes their effort more loving).

Well reasoned post. For anyone who would dispute your statement that defending the Church’s teaching is something you have to do:

17Son of man, I have appointed you a sentinel for the house of Israel.j When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.

18If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. 19If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life.

20But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood.k 21If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.

EZ 3:17-21

When we were baptized we became a prophetic people, and like every gift, this one comes with responsibilities.

 

[SeannyM]

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.

This is your opinion… And sure, that of the church… But we live in a pluralistic society in which religious beliefs don’t have any bearing on civil rights. The church is anti-gay, plain and simple. They actively campaign against the rights of gay people. If they kept it in the church then I’d have no problem with that… But they don’t. They actively campaign against my rights. And by my religions definition, the RCC is wrong in its teachings on gay marriage. What about my religious liberty? This is simple, anti= against gay=gay… The church actively campaigns against gay people, so yea, the definition fits.

 

[estesbob]

This is your opinion… And sure, that of the church… But we live in a pluralistic society in which religious beliefs don’t have any bearing on civil rights. The church is anti-gay, plain and simple. They actively campaign against the rights of gay people. If they kept it in the church then I’d have no problem with that… But they don’t. They actively campaign against my rights. And by my religions definition, the RCC is wrong in its teachings on gay marriage. What about my religious liberty? This is simple, anti= against gay=gay… The church actively campaigns against gay people, so yea, the definition fits.

And when did your Church decide homosexual behavior was not a Sin?

 

[Elizium23]

Nonsense, the Church does not campaign against the rights of homosexual persons. In the United States and the Catholic Church, homosexual persons already have all the rights afforded to other types of persons. I know of no law that restricts their rights, civil or religious. In fact there are many civil laws which propose to create a protected class for homosexuals or other sexual deviants and this is something I oppose, because it is unnecessary. Now, people with a homosexual orientation have the same rights but that does not extend to the right to sin. For example, people with deeply ingrained homosexual tendencies or an affinity for the homosexual lifestyle are barred from the seminary. That doesn’t mean that homosexual people are barred, only people who act in a way contrary to Church teaching. And that is perfectly logical. Nobody at all has a right to seminary entrance anyway, and the Church has a right to screen candidates who may be a detriment to the priesthood rather than a benefit to her mission.

On the subject of marriage, homosexual persons have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. The United States considers this a right. I am unsure about its status as right or privilege in the Catholic Church. It is considered a vocation and it is not extended to everyone who asks. Pastors have the right to refuse to marry couples who could not do so licitly or validly.

Your assertion that the Church campaigns against human rights is pure and unadulterated horse puckey and it is that kind of hate and intolerance that characterizes homosexualists who seek to denigrate the Church because of what she stands for. The Church has been the sole bulwark of human rights in her 2,000 year history. The Church has always fought for the rights of the marginalized, the weak, the defenseless, and the needy. There are vast networks of charity missions which target these types of people and help them based on our Christian faith. The Church has spread the Gospel of Christ to every nation and that Gospel includes fundamental human rights. The United States would not exist as we know it if it were not for the Church. Our Founding Fathers saw exactly what kind of trouble an established religion could make in a country like England and set about protecting our rights in the Constitution. That is a Constitution which is being torn to shreds by the First Gay President as he persecutes Catholics because he hates our stance on things such as the Culture of Death. Cardinal Francis George made a chilling prediction when he said “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” and faithful Catholics know that his prophecy will come to pass. Schismatic “catholics” who embrace this Culture of Death will be visited by the Biological Solution soon enough and we will not have to worry about any enduring opposition from them.

 

[OU812]

And when did your Church decide homosexual behavior was not a Sin?

I’m also curious as to what is permissible from this American Catholic faith.

 

[estesbob]

I’m also curious as to what is permissible from this American Catholic faith.

Many other denominations have come to the amazing conclusion that Christianity was wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.So one has to wonder what makes our generation so much smarter than all who went before us? Nothing has changed but the culture.So either God let us live in error for 2,000 years OR some denominations have caved to the mores of our times.

 

[SMGS127]

Well, what they are doing with the HHS mandate is saying “you’re not a Church, you’re a health provider, so religious exemptions don’t count.”

Listen, I like your direct, simple approach, but it doesn’t even begin to explain the nonsense that goes on in the legal world.

Just look at the photography and bakery businesses. They are told by the government they have to do business with people they don’t want to. And the gay rights movement responds by basically saying have a cake or picture taken from a certain person (cause you know there’s so few ) is a right.

And naturally, the gay couple, instead of enjoying their supposed “great, true love” go on a quest to punish the business using the courts.

I understand what you’re saying, but in every jurisdiction besides New Mexico, the courts and government have dismissed cases brought against religious businesses that refuse to serve same-sex “weddings” as long as the business will serve same-sex customers for any other activity. So that’s not really been a problem, and hopefully the New Mexico case will be overturned by the USSC, as that is really an outlier. In fact, in Oregon, there has only been one successful case ever brought up based on their non-discrimination laws, and it involved a bar owner who tried to refuse service blanketly to transgender customers, which is the purpose of the protection of the laws. So 99% of the laws have been applied in the “simple, direct” way you’ve discussed liking in my post. And certainly there has never been a single case in the US of someone being forced to minister to a gay “wedding.”

Listen, I make no defense of the UK; I don’t know why someone would live in a country where religious freedom is outright mocked and has no rule of law. But in the US, the First Amendment means a lot to people, even the ones putting the same-sex “marriage” laws into place. I won’t say people won’t ever TRY to force Catholic priests to perform same-sex “marriages,” because crazy people exist everywhere (although they are a superbly tiny minority of the LGBT community and are almost universally atheists). But they will never succeed. And in truth, many LGBT people, even actively LGBT people, are very religious, especially Christians. Most belong to so-called “inclusive” Protestant religions, but I’ve met many Catholics as well who believe very strongly in the Faith but struggle reconciling their religious beliefs and their innate knowledge of their sexual orientation, especially with the experiences they have with religious people (especially Protestants) spouting off falsehoods about gay people in general.

 

[SeannyM]

Nonsense, the Church does not campaign against the rights of homosexual persons. In the United States and the Catholic Church, homosexual persons already have all the rights afforded to other types of persons. I know of no law that restricts their rights, civil or religious. In fact there are many civil laws which propose to create a protected class for homosexuals or other sexual deviants and this is something I oppose, because it is unnecessary. Now, people with a homosexual orientation have the same rights but that does not extend to the right to sin. For example, people with deeply ingrained homosexual tendencies or an affinity for the homosexual lifestyle are barred from the seminary. That doesn’t mean that homosexual people are barred, only people who act in a way contrary to Church teaching. And that is perfectly logical. Nobody at all has a right to seminary entrance anyway, and the Church has a right to screen candidates who may be a detriment to the priesthood rather than a benefit to her mission.

On the subject of marriage, homosexual persons have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. The United States considers this a right. I am unsure about its status as right or privilege in the Catholic Church. It is considered a vocation and it is not extended to everyone who asks. Pastors have the right to refuse to marry couples who could not do so licitly or validly.

Your assertion that the Church campaigns against human rights is pure and unadulterated horse puckey and it is that kind of hate and intolerance that characterizes homosexualists who seek to denigrate the Church because of what she stands for. The Church has been the sole bulwark of human rights in her 2,000 year history. The Church has always fought for the rights of the marginalized, the weak, the defenseless, and the needy. There are vast networks of charity missions which target these types of people and help them based on our Christian faith. The Church has spread the Gospel of Christ to every nation and that Gospel includes fundamental human rights. The United States would not exist as we know it if it were not for the Church. Our Founding Fathers saw exactly what kind of trouble an established religion could make in a country like England and set about protecting our rights in the Constitution. That is a Constitution which is being torn to shreds by the First Gay President as he persecutes Catholics because he hates our stance on things such as the Culture of Death. Cardinal Francis George made a chilling prediction when he said “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” and faithful Catholics know that his prophecy will come to pass. Schismatic “catholics” who embrace this Culture of Death will be visited by the Biological Solution soon enough and we will not have to worry about any enduring opposition from them.

Hey man… I agree, the church has the right to refuse entry to the seminary to anyone they choose, and no pastor can be forced to marry anyone. This is how it should be. I’m not talking about the right to marry in the Roman Catholic Church… I’m talking about civil marriage. Actually not just civil marriage. I want the right to be married by my church and have it recognized by the goverent just like the marriages that you church performs. I actually have that right because I live in California, but I’d really like to see that made available to the entire country. As for the rest of your post, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[estesbob]

Hey man… I agree, the church has the right to refuse entry to the seminary to anyone they choose, and no pastor can be forced to marry anyone. This is how it should be. I’m not talking about the right to marry in the Roman Catholic Church… I’m talking about civil marriage. Actually not just civil marriage. I want the right to be married by my church and have it recognized by the goverent just like the marriages that you church performs. I actually have that right because I live in California, but I’d really like to see that made available to the entire country. As for the rest of your post, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

When did your denomination decide homosexual behavior was not a Sin?

 

[MacBP]

This is your opinion… And sure, that of the church… But we live in a pluralistic society in which religious beliefs don’t have any bearing on civil rights. The church is anti-gay, plain and simple. They actively campaign against the rights of gay people. If they kept it in the church then I’d have no problem with that… But they don’t. They actively campaign against my rights. And by my religions definition, the RCC is wrong in its teachings on gay marriage. What about my religious liberty? This is simple, anti= against gay=gay… The church actively campaigns against gay people, so yea, the definition fits.

I think most of us take issue with the fact that you’ve miss-attributed a subjective motive to the Church teaching. While we may be attempting to impede your chosen lifestyle, it isn’t because we dislike you. The Church believes that everyone — gay, straight, both or neither — is a beautiful soul of infinite worth in the eyes of God. The Church loves you, and because She loves you She tries her very best to bring you closer to God. The Church attacks the same-sex lifestyle because She loves the a person with same-sex attraction. Is the Church anti-gay because She wants to see every person with same-sex attraction in eternal union with God? Is she anti-gay because she continues to want that union despite scorn, ridicule, and hatred?

 

[SuperLuigi]

This is your opinion… And sure, that of the church… But we live in a pluralistic society in which religious beliefs don’t have any bearing on civil rights.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right for anyone.

The church is anti-gay, plain and simple. They actively campaign against the rights of gay people.

That is not anti-gay, and GLBTQ folks have the same rights as anyone else.

If they kept it in the church then I’d have no problem with that… But they don’t. They

Freedom of religion is not restricted to worship.

actively campaign against my rights.

And by my religions definition, the RCC is wrong in its teachings on gay marriage. What about my religious liberty?

Don’t force your “religion” on us then. You are asking the secular state to recognize your relationship.

This is simple, anti= against gay=gay… The church actively campaigns against gay people, so yea, the definition fits.

Inaccurate, untrue and a very weak argument.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think most of us take issue with the fact that you’ve miss-attributed a subjective motive to the Church teaching. While we may be attempting to impede your chosen lifestyle, it isn’t because we dislike you. The Church believes that everyone — gay, straight, both or neither — is a beautiful soul of infinite worth in the eyes of God. The Church loves you, and because She loves you She tries her very best to bring you closer to God. The Church attacks the same-sex lifestyle because She loves the a person with same-sex attraction. Is the Church anti-gay because She wants to see every person with same-sex attraction in eternal union with God? Is she anti-gay because she continues to want that union despite scorn, ridicule, and hatred?

The Church doesn’t “attack” it, it is trying to correct it and make sure the Faithful are forced by the state to recognize and subsidize relationships we find immoral.

 

[Elizium23]

Marriage is not a Constitutional right for anyone.

I believe that the Supreme Court has well established that marriage is a civil right for Americans. Homosexuals may yet obtain the civil right to marry persons of the same sex. They currently have the same civil right as anyone else, that is marriage to a person of opposite sex. However, homosexuals do not have the human right to marry persons of the same sex. This is not granted by God and the state is unable to grant something of this nature. Homosexuals are still eligible to marry persons of the opposite sex in a manner recognized by the Church, assuming that it is possible for them to complete the marital embrace in the normal way. But the Church does not view marriage as a right, so it cannot be a human right, merely a civil right in the appropriate nations.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Nonsense, the Church does not campaign against the rights of homosexual persons. In the United States and the Catholic Church, homosexual persons already have all the rights afforded to other types of persons. I know of no law that restricts their rights, civil or religious. In fact there are many civil laws which propose to create a protected class for homosexuals or other sexual deviants and this is something I oppose, because it is unnecessary. Now, people with a homosexual orientation have the same rights but that does not extend to the right to sin. For example, people with deeply ingrained homosexual tendencies or an affinity for the homosexual lifestyle are barred from the seminary. That doesn’t mean that homosexual people are barred, only people who act in a way contrary to Church teaching. And that is perfectly logical. Nobody at all has a right to seminary entrance anyway, and the Church has a right to screen candidates who may be a detriment to the priesthood rather than a benefit to her mission.

On the subject of marriage, homosexual persons have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. The United States considers this a right. I am unsure about its status as right or privilege in the Catholic Church. It is considered a vocation and it is not extended to everyone who asks. Pastors have the right to refuse to marry couples who could not do so licitly or validly.

Your assertion that the Church campaigns against human rights is pure and unadulterated horse puckey and it is that kind of hate and intolerance that characterizes homosexualists who seek to denigrate the Church because of what she stands for. The Church has been the sole bulwark of human rights in her 2,000 year history. The Church has always fought for the rights of the marginalized, the weak, the defenseless, and the needy. There are vast networks of charity missions which target these types of people and help them based on our Christian faith. The Church has spread the Gospel of Christ to every nation and that Gospel includes fundamental human rights. The United States would not exist as we know it if it were not for the Church. Our Founding Fathers saw exactly what kind of trouble an established religion could make in a country like England and set about protecting our rights in the Constitution. That is a Constitution which is being torn to shreds by the First Gay President as he persecutes Catholics because he hates our stance on things such as the Culture of Death. Cardinal Francis George made a chilling prediction when he said “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” and faithful Catholics know that his prophecy will come to pass. Schismatic “catholics” who embrace this Culture of Death will be visited by the Biological Solution soon enough and we will not have to worry about any enduring opposition from them.

Umm, sorry, but the Church **has **used its money to fight gay rights legislation. Moreover, most Catholics are unaware that their parishioner donations are used to fund these campaigns.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Umm, sorry, but the Church **has **used its money to fight gay rights legislation. Moreover, most Catholics are unaware that their parishioner donations are used to fund these campaigns.

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

 

[signit]

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

Well, the main point of what the other poster is saying is that the Church has donated money to such causes.

Seems to be true; according to this, dioceses gave $180,000 toward the 2012 Minnesota campaign:

startribune.com/politics/statelocal/174800591.html

Whether that’s a good thing to do, that’s another question.

 

[Trader]

Has the Catholic Church fought against “gay rights legislation” or to preserve the institution
of marriage as the union of a man and woman?

…and the basic human right of children to have both a mother and a father. That trumps any alleged right to have sodomy recognized as a good thing.