"Catholic" Homosexuals Demonstrate against Bishop Nienstedt's Too "Authoritative Teaching"

  • Thread starter Thread starter KathleenElsie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cmudd said:
After reading several of your former posts and responding to a few of them in the past, I have arrived at some conclusions about your opinions on Church matters. Please tell me if any of them are correct, incorrect, close to correct, etc…
  1. You don’t believe that the Pope and the magesterium are infallible and thus, you don’t acknowledge any authority that the Church claims.
  2. It does not matter how definitive the Church is about an issue, for you, it is still up for debate: sexual morality, Church authority, Church discipline, etc…
  3. If it feels good for you (or someone else), it is OK and should not be seen as disordered, sinful, wrong, etc…
If you could, in just a couple of words, answer the following questions:
  1. Is the Catholic Church the One Church established by Christ Himself?
  2. Is that Church free from error (as clearly stated in the catechism)?
  3. Is there any action that can be called objectively sinful (as opposed to subjectively sinful)?
  4. Do you believe that the Catholic Church officially condemns homosexual activity, abortion, contraception, murder, premarital intercourse, masturbation, stealing, etc…?
  5. Is the Holy Father the final arbiter of Church teaching and scriptural interpretation?
  6. Do you see yourself as a qualified authority on what the Church teaches and are those teachings subject to be altered/amended based on your own personal preferences?
Please, just a few words for each.
Click to expand...
I think if you want to understand NewUlm’s manner of thinking, all you have to do is read this article about the man he so obviously admires: catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3961

Lengthy, but well worth the read—and quite eye-opening, to say the least. And that’s the whole story, right there. :rolleyes:
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
I thought you were “done with me”, but oh well. 🤷
Click to expand...
I decided I just couldn’t let you influence anyone with you false philosophies and false theology.
The lifestyle is not “sinful.”
Click to expand...
Nice use of quotes once again. Do you believe in sin at all? Do you believe in hell?
What is interpreted in the Catechism and in the past are one set of theological opinions, of which many are very diverse in the Church.
Click to expand...
Show me one, just one, official position the Church has ever taken that said homosexual acts were not sinful. The opinions of a renegade theologian like Fr. McBrien are not an official position regarding the teaching of the Church.
From the people in the pews up to the Pope, we are all fallible people.
Click to expand...
Rejection of Dogma is a mortal sin. I guess that doesn’t bother you though, because there is no hell anyway right?
If you want to know more, ask about Pastoral styles of leadership (one of many in the Church).
Click to expand...
The greatest pastoral syle of leadership is one in which sin is clearly defined so that Catholics can understand how to live their lives in a way that will allow them to get to Heaven. Any other approach is a waste.
 
I just wanted to see what more Catholics thought of this. It’s one thing to be completely Democrat, and follow the party line, but it’s another to be anti-Catholic.

Why is it okay for people to bash us, and nobody else? It seems to be trendy, and like the “cool” thing to do. It gets me so sick.:eek:

articles.citypages.com/2007-12-12/news/archbishop-homophobe/
 
TopherAlan said:
Why is it okay for people to bash us, and nobody else? It seems to be trendy, and like the “cool” thing to do. It gets me so sick.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your comment about Democrats is all about, but I do agree with you that it is hip and fashionable to attack the Church and its teachings.

As for the article, which is surprisingly short and uninformative, I would suggest you consider its source. The City Pages, I believe is an alternative-press weekly. These typically cater to the young and college educated/oriented who are trying to be hip and fashionable.

And the author of the article is a former writer for the National Catholic Reporter. linkedin.com/pub/4/341/89A
 
They bash anyone against their agenda… as do most people with an agenda.

As a person who has a number of gay friends I believe the position of the RCC is the most open of any Christian Church that truly believes the Bible is the Word of God.

You can discount certian passages from the OT easily, our Church probably understands parts of Lev to often be mis quoted. However it’s difficult to get around what Paul tells us in Romans right?

What is different about the RC view, at least IMHO, compared to other Christian bodies is that those others just say "Your going to HELL! because you choose to do this…

Most fundamentalist completely deny that there could be a genetic component. I hear my fundie friends argue, “God wouldn’t make someone gay!” Why not?

God made me, and many other men (and women), have a great desire for the opposite sex yet commands us to be faithful in the Sacrament of Marriage but didn’t make everyone that way. He made some people more susceptable for alcoholism but not everyone… get my point?

Many people, including my gay friends, would say that it’s not the same because at least I have someone to love in this life. Acccording to our beliefs though, it’s not about this life is it? I do not envy someone who is gay because that would be an enormus cross to bear, yet it’s one that some people are asked to bear in this life.

Thus, at least from my understanding, we teach that sure you can be attracted to the same sex but God is calling you to deny that attraction, just like he is calling me not to sleep with every woman I meet (if I could that is…). No it’s not exactly the same but to me that is qualitative better than just telling someone they made it up in their head and are going to BURN in HELL no matter what they do and it is more theologically correct.

We don’t know if they are going to burn in hell, it could be that someone who is gay and active has a moment of true contrition just before death or that they deny that part of their being to live at the Bible and the Church teaches. All we can, and should say, again IMHO, is that our Church and our Scripture teaches us that if you choose to do certian things, homosexual sex being one of those, the chances are highly likely that without repentance you will not go to Heaven.

To me, that makes sense… it’s not easy and I don’t think any homosexual groups would agree. But SSA help in the RCC is much more appropriate than trying to “cure” someone as they said they did to Ted Haggard.

Joe
 
What I mean about Democrats is that they are strong into gay rights. This is another step.

I live in Minneapolis where this was printed, and know that the City Pages regurgitates whatever the Dems say. They pretty much should just call themselves the Democratic Entertainment Paper.

I just wish we had an entertainment paper that just talked about entertainment (music/theatre/movies/etc) without being a vehicle for liberal agenda.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
While the Archbishop has his opinions, the way he presents them as a black and white rule interpretation issue does more harm than good. Abhp Flynn while believing the same things at least publically reached out and show public compassion and not the stern “father figure” which Niensedet is billing himself to be (he has explicitly said that in an interview linked from the Archdiocese website. That is because in real life, rules run into many, many gray areas where humanity shows that any logic making the rules is flawed.
Click to expand...
I’d love to hear about some of these grey areas. Would you care to expand upon it?
 
jwashu said:
Most fundamentalist completely deny that there could be a genetic component. I hear my fundie friends argue, “God wouldn’t make someone gay!” Why not?

God made me, and many other men (and women), have a great desire for the opposite sex yet commands us to be faithful in the Sacrament of Marriage but didn’t make everyone that way. He made some people more susceptable for alcoholism but not everyone… get my point?
Click to expand...
SSA is a mental handicap, just as sure as someone with one leg four inches shorter than the other has a physical handicap.

Are there people born without arms, legs, etc.? Yes. Is God repsonsible for that?

No. Why?

A little thing called “original sin”, folks. We live in a fallen, imperfect world. People suffer in this world because of original sin, like it or not. People are born with birth defects, handicaps, problems.

Some people are born without arms or legs, some people are born with IQ’s of 65, some people are born with SSA. They are all handicaps. None of them are normal.

(shrug) It’s the way it is. Deal with it, follow Christ as best you can, and drive on.
I do not envy someone who is gay because that would be an enormus cross to bear, yet it’s one that some people are asked to bear in this life.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what the Church has said, as well. No. 2358 from the CCC:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
 
Wolseley said:
SSA is a mental handicap, just as sure as someone with one leg four inches shorter than the other has a physical handicap.

Are there people born without arms, legs, etc.? Yes. Is God repsonsible for that?

No. Why?

A little thing called “original sin”, folks. We live in a fallen, imperfect world. People suffer in this world because of original sin, like it or not. People are born with birth defects, handicaps, problems.

Some people are born without arms or legs, some people are born with IQ’s of 65, some people are born with SSA. They are all handicaps. None of them are normal.

(shrug) It’s the way it is. Deal with it, follow Christ as best you can, and drive on.

That’s exactly what the Church has said, as well. No. 2358 from the CCC:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
Click to expand...
SSA a mental handicap? It does not prevent one from functioning normally in society so that is pure nonsense.
 
goofyjim said:
SSA a mental handicap? It does not prevent one from functioning normally in society so that is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...
People without arms or legs can function normally in society, too, Jim, but that doesn’t mean that they are as well-equipped as someone without the handicap.

No offense, but I will stand by what I said: SSA is a mental handicap, an aberration; I hesitate to use the term “disease”, so I will use “condition”, like diabetes or obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s an abnormality in the overall makeup.

You are, of course, under absolutely no compulsion whatsoever to agree with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top