Catholic Parish Part of Gay Pride Parade in NYC

  • Thread starter Thread starter NFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soudns to me like pick and choose. Jesus chose him to be a deciple, and a great one as well.

Well, that’s fine by me, that’s your belief, to me, if it was truly important than Jesus would have talked about it. And aren’t we all called to be disiples?
 
Wow that YouTube link was enlightning. I guess I was right, the parish is killing souls by the thousands afterall. This woman who can be herself with her partner within that Church (I’m hesitating typing out Church with a capital C when referring to it)" was shown in the procession toward the reception of the Eucharist. Such a sad sad situation.
The video just shows much more proof of what that parish is all about.
Paul was imperfect. I do not claim that he was not a great disciple.

And we ALL pick and choose from the Bible. I have not yet met a person or a Christian institution that did not pick and choose and establish hierarchies of values from the Bible and even erect justifications for dismissing certain less palatable elements of Biblical precepts. But I do not presently believe in God, so my “picking” is quite narrow.
The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible, I will go with that option.

Jesus didn’t talk about other things as well, but St. Paul talks about the act of homosexuality.​

I see, but in my opinion if it didn’t matter to Jesus it doesn’t matter to me. I do not equate
Jesus with St Paul.
There were already laws against homo-sexuality, if Jesus never spoke of it, he also never mention that it was ok.
 
Then why are you on a discussion forum?
Truism’s point seems to have gone over your head. Most of the posters here have been defending God’s law, His moral teachings, and the Church’s official teaching - not their own opinions. Your posts imply that you are the great arbiter of truth and have more knowledge than God and his Church. Heck, your “feelings” even tell you that St. Paul was a problem! Like Truism, I too will trust God and His Church to instruct me how to lead my life. May you open your heart and mind to the Truth with a capital T, not the politically correct “truth” of the day.
 
Wow that YouTube link was enlightning. I guess I was right, the parish is killing souls by the thousands afterall. This woman who can be herself with her partner within that Church **(I’m hesitating typing out Church with a capital C when referring to it)" **was shown in the procession toward the reception of the Eucharist. **Such a sad sad situation./**QUOTE]

You are so right, Loboto-Me. If you look around their website, their bulletin, and the Mission Statement written on their Facebook page (which conveniently makes no mention of God and His Mission), it’s disgraceful. Tomorrow night they are having the Catholic Lesbians do a presentation on “The Face of Jesus”.

Clearly, the congregation of St. Francis Xavier and some posters here are insistent that the Church should change Her teachings to suit those who want to live an active homosexual lifestyle; it’s simply a case of the Church being more “tolerant”. Well, I wonder how tolerant the “Catholic Lesbian” group and the “Gay Catholic” group at St. F.X. would be if we walked into their meetings teaching the Truth of the Church. Somehow, I don’t think they’d hear us out for a minute.
 
Truism’s point seems to have gone over your head. Most of the posters here have been defending God’s law, His moral teachings, and the Church’s official teaching - not their own opinions. Your posts imply that you are the great arbiter of truth and have more knowledge than God and his Church. Heck, your “feelings” even tell you that St. Paul was a problem! Like Truism, I too will trust God and His Church to instruct me how to lead my life. May you open your heart and mind to the Truth with a capital T, not the politically correct “truth” of the day.
Couldn’t said it better myself, seems kind of pointless now to keep discussing with those who just plug there ears and speak? 👍
 
Wow. Since so many of you apparently qualify, how will you decide who actually gets to throw that first stone? By a lottery…or fisticuffs…or maybe everybody on the count of three? :rolleyes:
 
I am saddened to read so much hate in this thread. I remember Jesus telling us not to judge others and to love everyone. Where have we gone wrong?
 
felsguy and ewsussek, I see that you are posted as being Catholics. You both say basically the same message which is well and good but it seems you both have a little more reading to do.

Learn what the Church teaches, and notice that these statements made by Catholics who follow Church teachings are made in love. Yes, we say our opinions and we fight back when we are attacked, but did you not see what this “Church” is doing? They are giving the Sacrament of the Eucharist to people who are practicing and living in sin (which this “church” encourages, according to comments made by the GL community in that “church”).

This is detrimental to their souls! Do you understand that?? Jesus said that what is bound by the Church is bound in heaven. It is bound that we follow the Church Tradition and teaching. We have to be in a state of grace to receive the Body of Christ otherwise … 1 Corinthians 11:29 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body

Do you understand what’s happening here? Do you really think this Church is “loving” the parishioners by allowing them to eat and drink damnation upon themselves?

I challenge you to watch this video on “Judgementalism” realcatholictv.com/share/watch.php?vidID=totf-2009-10-04

Sure it’s more about the “judge not lest ye be judged” but it’s still in the same vein as “throw the first stone”.
 
I am saddened to read so much hate in this thread. I remember Jesus telling us not to judge others and to love everyone. Where have we gone wrong?
I don’t recall Jesus saying to the woman caught in adultery, “That’s OK hon. Go on back and keep right on committing adultery because my way of ‘love’ is to permit any and all sins on the grounds that my ‘love’ requires me to ignore them and just let you have heaven regardless.”

Rather, He said, “Go and sin no more.”

So there she was. Yes, she would not be killed for her sin. . .but Jesus did not allow her to RESUME the sin.

So how could any Christian in good conscience say to those committing the sins of homosexual actions (not inclinations), “oh just go ahead and do what you want because God loves you the way you are and you need not change?”

That would not be love at all. That would in fact be the most unloving thing we could do, to ‘accept’ them and encourage them to continue in mortal sin! Would you let your loved ones do an action that they wanted if you knew for sure that it would kill them? Of course not. Your child or spouse could be begging and pleading for a lethal dose of drugs but if you loved them, you would help them, no matter how difficult it would be for them, to go through rehabilitation and get ‘clean’, rather than let them die from the drugs. Wouldn’t you?
 
40.png
khergesheimer:
How does a non Catholic ‘defy’ church teaching? What is actually the case is that DISCUSSING church doctrine in an unfavorable light is simply not accepted

I’ll be gone soon as well. But you guys simply can’t handle the fact there are people who oppose your insistence that you have a right to bigotry
If you disagree with the Church’s position don’t join it or leave. Try taking your argument to an Islamic website, if you have the courage of your convictions.
 
I am saddened to read so much hate in this thread. I remember Jesus telling us not to judge others and to love everyone. Where have we gone wrong?
One on side people are advocating the Church’s position on homosexuality. On the other are accusations of hatred, bigotry and intolerance. Who’s hating?
 
Kill them how? How do you mean this?
If I may…sodomy is a mortal sin. And not just any ol’ mortal sin, the Church describes it as a ‘sin that cries to the Heavens’. If you die with a mortal sin on your soul you go to Hell. What many people here including myself have been trying to do is save people from Hell. It would not be charitable or Christian to condone sinful behaviour, actually the Church calls us to speak against it and counsel the uninformed.
 
If I may…sodomy is a mortal sin. And not just any ol’ mortal sin, the Church describes it as a ‘sin that cries to the Heavens’. If you die with a mortal sin on your soul you go to Hell. What many people here including myself have been trying to do is save people from Hell. It would not be charitable or Christian to condone sinful behaviour, actually the Church calls us to speak against it and counsel the uninformed.
So, you mean “save people from hell,” but not “do them justice,” or “allow them the adult spouse of their choice”? I am very distrusting of persons who wish to base their rationale for legal limitations on what “will save their souls from Hell.”

Do you wish there to be legal punishments for adultery or any of the ten commandments? Or just some of them?

Can a married couple commit “sodomy”, or is this a “mortal sin” in a married couple as well? I think I have asked you to define this, but no one has. How does the RCC define “sodomy”? (I cannot find anything specific).
 
Here is the Freedictionary.com definition and explanation of the legal history in the USA:

*Sodomy:

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a “crime against nature” or as copulation “against the order of nature.” In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity was seen as unnatural or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents’ immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. In addition, state courts in 10 states applied state constitutional provisions to invalidate sodomy laws. As of early 2003, eight states had laws that barred heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. Three other states barred sodomy between homosexuals.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Georgia sodomy statute. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged with sodomy for engaging in oral sex with a consenting male adult in his home. A police officer was let into Hardwick’s home to serve a warrant and saw the sexual act. Although the state prosecutor declined to prosecute the case, Hardwick brought suit in federal court asking that the statute be declared unconstitutional.

On a 5–4 vote, the Court upheld the law. Writing for the majority, Justice byron r. white rejected the argument that previous decisions such as the Court’s rulings on Abortion and contraception had created a right of privacy that extended to homosexual sodomy. Instead, the Court drew a sharp distinction between the previous cases, which involved “family, marriage, or procreation,” and homosexual activity.

The Court also rejected the argument that there is a fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity. Prohibitions against sodomy were in the laws of most states since the nation’s founding. To the argument that homosexual activity should be protected when it occurs in the privacy of a home, White stated that “otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home.” Because the claim in the case involved only homosexual sodomy, the Court expressed no opinion about the constitutionality of the statute as applied to acts of heterosexual sodomy.

The Bowers decision was severly criticized. Justice lewis powell, who voted with the majority, later stated that he had made a mistake in voting to affirm the law. In July 2003 the Supreme Court reversed itself on the issue of sodomy. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, in a 6–3 decision, the Court invalidated a Texas anti-homosexual sodomy law by invoking the constitutional rights to privacy.*
 
So, you mean “save people from hell,” but not “do them justice,” or “allow them the adult spouse of their choice”? I am very distrusting of persons who wish to base their rationale for legal limitations on what “will save their souls from Hell.”

Do you wish there to be legal punishments for adultery or any of the ten commandments? Or just some of them?

Can a married couple commit “sodomy”, or is this a “mortal sin” in a married couple as well? I think I have asked you to define this, but no one has. How does the RCC define “sodomy”? (I cannot find anything specific).
You may be ‘distrusting’ but if we are correct (and I believe we are), it is vastly more important for a person to save his/her eternal soul than to be ‘happy’ on earth.

And we are not denying people ‘justice.’ Suppose the spouse I ‘want’ happens to be married to somebody else? Perhaps he simply doesn’t wish to marry ME? Am I entitled to have ‘what I want’ simply because I want it? Is there no societal ‘limit’? I cannot marry a parent, a sibling, my own child, a person already married, or a person who does not freely wish to marry me --so yes, there ARE societal limits. The homosexual person is as ‘free’ to marry as the heterosexual person within societal constraints.

Tell you what, just what is the legal definition of marriage?
 
So, you mean “save people from hell,” but not “do them justice,” or “allow them the adult spouse of their choice”? I am very distrusting of persons who wish to base their rationale for legal limitations on what “will save their souls from Hell.”

Do you wish there to be legal punishments for adultery or any of the ten commandments? Or just some of them?

Can a married couple commit “sodomy”, or is this a “mortal sin” in a married couple as well? I think I have asked you to define this, but no one has. How does the RCC define “sodomy”? (I cannot find anything specific).
Distrust if you wish, but it is God’s law, not any state that takes priority. As mentioned earlier, slavery was legal once. Abortion is legal in most countries today but that doesn’t mean it isn’t murder (another mortal sin).

Give to Ceasar what is his and to God what is His. Now you are putting up strawman arguments. No one has said adultery should be made criminal, but murder most certainly is.

Do you seriously need a definition of sodomy? Try a dictionary please. It is a mortal sin no matter who does it, in what context, or situation. If any Catholic church or organization condones same sex relationships they are condoning a mortal sin. As such that particular church or organization is outside the Church and leading people to Hell.

We are called to sainthood. This life was never promised to be easy. We all have challenges, some more than others. If you view your challenges as opportunities God will grace you with eternal salvation. That’s the point here. It’s not about repressing anyone it’s about your soul. The eighty or so years spent here in this life is a drop in the bucket compared to eternity. You need to focus on where you will spend your eternity rather than earthly temptations here.
 
And we are not denying people ‘justice.’ Suppose the spouse I ‘want’ happens to be married to somebody else? Perhaps he simply doesn’t wish to marry ME? Am I entitled to have ‘what I want’ simply because I want it? Is there no societal ‘limit’? I cannot marry a parent, a sibling, my own child, a person already married, or a person who does not freely wish to marry me --so yes, there ARE societal limits. The homosexual person is as ‘free’ to marry as the heterosexual person within societal constraints.
Good point.

God gives us free will. Actions have consequences. If we choose to sin we may go to jail here, but more importantly we may go to Hell afterwards.

Death. Judgement. Heaven. Hell.

It’s really that simple.
 
Part of the problem, Larkin, is that there has been a lot of ‘re-writing’ in modern society. And it’s not always correct. . .not even in the hallowed halls of ‘science.’

I’m old enough to remember that the American Medical Association in the 1980s spoke out strongly against consumption of eggs and coffee, with studies showing how ‘dangerous’ these things were. Studies today show no such thing.

I remember in the 1980s when the AMA told us to have our infants sleep on their bellies to decrease SIDS. . .followed a couple of years later by being told to have them sleep propped on the side, and then ‘on the back’. Each time, we were told that NOT having them sleep in the ‘preferred’ way would put them ‘at risk’ for SIDS. . .

I remember when an alcoholic was told to engage in ‘responsible’ drinking, or was told to prove his ‘strength’ by putting himself in situations where he would be ‘tempted’, and that this was necessary for a ‘cure’.

I remember when the American Psychological Association "removed’ homosexuality as a disorder, and when they suggested that pedophilia could be cured and the offenders given a ‘second chance.’

I remember when Pluto was taught to be the 9th planet, and when it was ‘downgraded.’

So just because something is said to be a ‘truth’ one day doesn’t ‘guarantee’ it, speaking solely from the ‘human’ perspective. If you want an ‘eternal truth’, you need to check with God ==and luckily enough, He actually left us a Church with the authority to tell us what is, and what isn’t, eternal truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top