"Catholic Rainbow Parents" in MN, openly protest Vatican teaching on homosexuality

[Brendan]

Libero:

Whilst Tetzel may say so, Luther did, and Luther did start a reformation, if he was so wrong, why was his reformation such a success.

Is it? What has happened to the Lutheran Church and all the Churches it has spawned.

Sure they are still around. The Arians were still around hundreds of years after Nicea. That doesn’t mean they were correct in their doctrines.

I have no church document, however, this is a subject that I could find quoted in (reliable) history text books used to educate school children. Many historians have supported the idea that indulgences at one time were used incorrectly. Quote the church document, it was one pope centuries ago. I do not know the church document used at the time.

Really, what History books go into the doctrine of Indulgences. I can point out middle eastern texts that teach Christians believe in 3 Gods. Does that show a good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?

Please read up on what Purgatory is and how Indulgences effect it.

At no point has the Church ever taught that anything other than the forgiveness of sin through the Blood of Christ can guarantee you a spot in heaven. And then only if you freely accept it and all it entails.

Indulgences always have, and do now, aid in the purgation process of those who have been judged by God worthy of Heaven.

To a Catholic, we enter heaven with no sin, zero, zip, nada. But since there are those who die with some sin, but not sin worthy of enternal damnation. To enter heaven, we must be entirely washed of sin?

How is that sin removed?

Purgation. And indulgences (prayer, fasting and almsgiving) assist with that process.

Luther denied the entire concept of Purgation. He held that our sins were not actually remitted, by Grace was imputed upon us. That we entered heaven with our sins remaining with us, but ‘covered’ by Grace. The “Snow covered dungheap”

Hence his disagreement with Purgation. It wasn’t required as we are never actually purged of our sins.

Those in Hell can never benefit of Indulgences as they are damned for all eternity. Those in Heaven need no indulgences, as they are cleansed.

So Indulgences can ONLY be effective for someone whom God alone has Judged and found worthy. And do you really believe someone can bribe God, or that the Church actually taught someone could bribe God, really?

 

[aria13]

Orogeny:

And I quote you: “What if I change the term homosexual to pedophile?” THAT’S where you interchanged the two terms. Possibly you meant something else, possibly you didn’t. If I misunderstood your intentions or the direction of the question(s) I aplolgize.

I’m glad that you haven’t lost your friendships with your gay friends. I’m also glad that you pray for them, whether it’s to change or just for them as fellow Christians or friends. I don’t know if you consider them Christian, and I really don’t want to know. As for your sister, that has to be very difficult to think that a sibling is going to hell. I hope you are wrong. I don’t mean that to argue, I just sincerely hope that she won’t go to hell…for whatever reason.

I’m not equating sex w/love. The 2 are very different, yet in loving, committed relationships they go hand in hand. You’re married, you know what you have with your wife. I was giving gay couples the same loving, committed relationship that heterosexual couples share. Just giving them the benefit of the doubt…a monogamous relationship. Not “playing the field” relationships. I wasn’t implying that they can’t love without sex, because that would also imply that straight people can’t either. That’s not what I said, and not what I meant. I think we are both guilty of reading too much into each others writings, probably because we both feel strongly about our convictions on the subject. I don’t think either of us is going budge on this, and that’s ok.

I didn’t dismiss your experiences. I couldn’t really discuss something that you didn’t share much of. You have gay friends, one who is celibate, and others who are not. You have a lesbian sister whom you are concerned about. My statement about your unconditional love for her was just something that could very possibly cross her mind. You say I don’t know what I’m talking about, what part would that be? The part where I wrote that people wonder if people love them? that kids have sex with multiple partners, regardless of gender preference? Believe me sir, I know what I’m talking about. I was a youth director, then went back to school to become a teacher. I’ve worked with kids for several years. They will tell you anything if they know you aren’t going to jump all over them, that you’ll listen and talk to them, that you won’t condemn them, that you’ll treat them fairly and get them help if needed, and that you’ll still love them for who they are.

Of course there could be “cured” homosexuals. I’ve never met anyone yet to say that, but have you? And then again, to have someone be “cured,” wouldn’t that mean that you might actually think there is something wrong with them, physically, mentally or genetically? You once said you never wanted to know WHY they are gay. I personally think that genetic abnormalities can’t be “cured.” Oh, yes…there could be miracles, and I’m sure someone will profess to knowing someone who has had this miracle. But, if God is going to perform a miracle on a homosexual person, then I certainly pray that he does a few more for some other medical problems as well.

The Catholic church is not alone on their stand about gays. I just feel that we as humans can’t condemn people for something that possibly they have no control over. Yes, they can control their sexual urges, just as a heterosexual can, but if they truly love their partner, why should they have to? (don’t say because God says so, I’m just putting out “food for thought”) The churches have taken a stand against something that in some cases is visible, and others it’s not…as in being gay. If I went along with the ideas that this is a sin, (gay sex) and the chuches all condemn this sin and all those who practice this sin will go to hell, does that make gay sex a greater sin than any other? Is it worse than gluttony if a person continues to indulge? Is it worse than coveting or lusting after what others have if one continues to covet? what about swearing if the occasional swear word comes out? A person can ask for forgiveness, but if he/she continues on in this particular sin are they too going to hell? Man cannot make that judgement call.

In time we will all know God’s stand on this. Let’s pray that God is the loving God that we are taught about. (People used to be taught about the vengeful God, long before they heard about His love!)

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

If the Holy Spirit has been working through the church and church figures for so long, why is it that there is such a large difference of opinion between different church and religious figures? Why was the church allowed to be proven wrong, and why has the church been able to undergo such collosal criticism? The church has been wrong many times before, and the Holy Spirit did nothing to stop that happening. Why do we see two equally ranking Cardinals with very different opinions about the use of condoms? Why was our church split in two and then so many different denominations of churches formed?

The Church has not been wrong on matters of faith and morals.

Two equally ranking Cardinals speaking separately are not the magesterium and therefore are not protected by infallibility. They are people and their opinions can be wrong. When the bishops meet under the direction of the Pope then there is magesterium…where two are more are gathered in His name…particularly to discuss faith and morals their opinion - united as one - is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Let’s take the Lutheran split…he rebelled against the abuses of the Holy See with regard to indulgences. The complaint was with how they were granted (sold, in that time) - a practice. The concept of indulgences (matter of faith) remains true. The Holy Spirit protects the Truth and allows the practices to be reformed, modified in whatever manner helps to better support and represent the Truth.

The Church has not split. It is still One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Those who left the Church to start their own denominations fell victim to their own pride believing they knew better than Jesus and didn’t need the authority of the Church to guide them.

A similar event happened in the Old Testament when for years the Israelites knew God spoke directly with Moses, to Aaron through him and then to the people. Lo and behold in Numbers 16:1-35 the sons of the families of Levi and Reuben

"2 rose up before Moses, together with some of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of renown.

They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

Sound familiar?? Read on and you’ll see the consequences paid to those who had the nerve to speak such a way against God’s chosen, Moses and Aaron:

*"32 *and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. 33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. 34 All Israel who were around them fled at their outcry, for they said, “The earth may swallow us up!” **35 Fire also came forth from the LORD and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.

Adam and Eve were the first to second guess God’s will, there have been many more, and I suppose will continue to be. Doesn’t make them right, just human.

 

[Orogeny]

aria13:

Orogeny:

And I quote you: “What if I change the term homosexual to pedophile?” THAT’S where you interchanged the two terms. Possibly you meant something else, possibly you didn’t. If I misunderstood your intentions or the direction of the question(s) I aplolgize.

I interchanged the terms only to make a point that followed that sentence. Apology accepted.

I’m glad that you haven’t lost your friendships with your gay friends. I’m also glad that you pray for them, whether it’s to change or just for them as fellow Christians or friends. I don’t know if you consider them Christian, and I really don’t want to know.

Well, since you asked. One is a Christian, two aren’t. That isn’t me, that is them. They are happily proclaimed athiests.

As for your sister, that has to be very difficult to think that a sibling is going to hell. I hope you are wrong. I don’t mean that to argue, I just sincerely hope that she won’t go to hell…for whatever reason.

I hope I am wrong, too. But if she doesn’t change her ways, I’m afraid that she has made her bed, so to speak.

I was giving gay couples the same loving, committed relationship that heterosexual couples share. Just giving them the benefit of the doubt…a monogamous relationship.

Here is where we differ. The Church teaches that homosexual activities are inherently disordered. I don’t think we do them any favor by turning a blind eye to activities that are sinfull. I know you don’t agree with that position, but I do.

You say I don’t know what I’m talking about, what part would that be?

That was specifically about this statement you made:

Your experience with gay people is rather sad.

Of course there could be “cured” homosexuals. I’ve never met anyone yet to say that, but have you?

Nope.

And then again, to have someone be “cured,” wouldn’t that mean that you might actually think there is something wrong with them, physically, mentally or genetically? You once said you never wanted to know WHY they are gay.

I said I didn’t care why they were gay, although I don’t really care to know why, either. I definately think there is something wrong with homosexuals.

I personally think that genetic abnormalities can’t be “cured.” Oh, yes…there could be miracles, and I’m sure someone will profess to knowing someone who has had this miracle. But, if God is going to perform a miracle on a homosexual person, then I certainly pray that he does a few more for some other medical problems as well.

Maybe the miracle is that He touches the person and helps them to find the strength to live a chaste life.

The Catholic church is not alone on their stand about gays. I just feel that we as humans can’t condemn people for something that possibly they have no control over. Yes, they can control their sexual urges, just as a heterosexual can, but if they truly love their partner, why should they have to? (don’t say because God says so, I’m just putting out “food for thought”)

But that is truly the answer. I’m not sure why you don’t want me to use it.

The churches have taken a stand against something that in some cases is visible, and others it’s not…as in being gay. If I went along with the ideas that this is a sin, (gay sex) and the chuches all condemn this sin and all those who practice this sin will go to hell, does that make gay sex a greater sin than any other?

The Church also condemns adultery and fornication. My example in my earlier post fits this perfectly. I am tempted at times to cheat on my wife, but I don’t do it. If I did, yes, the Chruch would condemn that and rightfully so. It is a sin. I can’t think of a single sin that the Church doesn’t condemn.

Is it worse than gluttony if a person continues to indulge? Is it worse than coveting or lusting after what others have if one continues to covet? what about swearing if the occasional swear word comes out?

I don’t know about degrees of sin. I do my best (and fail constantly) to avoid sin.

A person can ask for forgiveness, but if he/she continues on in this particular sin are they too going to hell? Man cannot make that judgement call.

Well, isn’t that a very fundamental part of Christianity? God forgives us when we are truly sorry for our sins. Does that mean that we won’t fall and sin again? No, of course not. But are we truly sorry for a sin if we intend to continue committing the same sin over and over? If we are not truly sorry, our sin won’t be forgiven.

Peace

Tim

 

[Libero]

Really, what History books go into the doctrine of Indulgences. I can point out middle eastern texts that teach Christians believe in 3 Gods. Does that show a good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?

I think there may be some confussion here. When studying the formation of many protestant churches, I was taught, and read from many history text books. These were not theological text books, and it was in history not Tehology lessons. The books would not go into doctrine, just give summaries.

I am perfectly aware of purgatory, however I was referring to the MISUSE of indulgences, not the proper use.

The Church has not been wrong on matters of faith and morals.

Let’s take the Lutheran split…he rebelled against the abuses of the Holy See with regard to indulgences. The complaint was with how they were granted (sold, in that time) - a practice. The concept of indulgences (matter of faith) remains true. The Holy Spirit protects the Truth and allows the practices to be reformed, modified in whatever manner helps to better support and represent the Truth.

We accept the pope as infallable, yet popes have had many differing opinions on matters of faith and morals throughout history, JP2 strongly opposed the death penalty, yet some Popes had people executed. Church teaching has been changed even on the matter of homosexuality. At one time homosexuals would merely have been told they were going to hell, but now we tell homosexuals (even ones who have gone against church teaching on the matter) that there is still hope for them, that they shall go to heaven if they change and repent.

 

[Riley259]

We accept the pope as infallable, yet popes have had many differing opinions on matters of faith and morals throughout history, JP2 strongly opposed the death penalty, yet some Popes had people executed. Church teaching has been changed even on the matter of homosexuality. At one time homosexuals would merely have been told they were going to hell, but now we tell homosexuals (even ones who have gone against church teaching on the matter) that there is still hope for them, that they shall go to heaven if they change and repent.

I think you’re distorting the truth here. A little context and more detailed explanation of what other popes have taught (especially JP II) is necessary - it can all be reconciled. The Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops teaching in union with him) have never changed Church doctrine or matters of faith and morals. Though we all sin, we’re all capable of repenting and being saved because of our repentance and contrition - I find it hard to believe any Pope has never taught that! Regarding the issue of Catholic Rainbow Parents, I think it is both sad and completely misguided on their part to affirm their children’s active lifestyle in this area. I realize that it must be very difficult to have a child with this disorder and it definitely brings much suffering to both the child and the parent. However, they must continue to promote the truth and not waver or give in to the current secular culture on this matter - the virtue of fortitude is required. I will pray for all of them.

 

[Libero]

I don’t think that there is much more to say on this thread, we have kind of wrung it dry.

 

[contemplative]

Catholic29:

If you want to elevate your blood pressure, here’s more: mtn.org/cpcsm/catholicrainbowparents.htm

You think Benedict will be cowed be these folks? Me thinks not, and I know I’m not.:nope:

This does not raise my blood pressure. :nope:
I do feel sorry for the children of these parents. They obviously don’t understand the teachings of the Church or refuse to believe the teachings of the Church.

They can do no more than raise raucous in their hearts and the hearts of their children. There would be so much more peace for themselves if they were simply obedient and offered prayful petitions for God’s mercy so that they might understand.

 

[PLAL]

Alan Keyes Teaches Sex Education Lesson to Homosexual Interviewer

keyes2004.com/news/040907mostert.php

Click on "HERE" to Listen to the entire interview!!!

Editor’s note: An MP3 audio of Alan’s comments is available here.**

 

[johnq]

TarAshly:

The Catechism calls us to be charitable and not to mistreat or discriminate against homosexuals.

TarAshly :tiphat:

Thank you for quoting the Catechism. :yup: As we know from your quote and the Catechism love is the key to our salvation.

Can you help me? I am somewhat confused about where you stand and want to try to understand your message better and in full context.

Can you please answer these questions.

1. 
   *]What does the Church teach concerning homosexuals? (in addition to what I quoted from you)
   *]Is the teaching wrong?
   *]Do you believe in mortal sin? If so, how do you know what it is?
   *]Can good Christians / people go to hell for unrepented sins of the flesh?
   *]When is it OK to go against the teaches of the Church?
   *]Does the Church change it teaches on faith and morals?
   
   Thanks for the help.
   
   May God

 

[Libero]

John, not sure if this was directed at everyone, but I use this page, it is from the Catholic Bishops Conference, it should tell you all you need to know regarding church teaching.

catholic-ew.org.uk/nav/whatthechurchsays.htm

Hope this helps

 

[Digger71]

**Instead of using those juvenille tactics, why not explain WHY you think homosexuality is morally sound, and if so, what is your evidence? **

You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink.

The Church teaches that it, the Church, is infallible in moral issues. Therefore any argument that homosexuality is morally sound is by definition wrong, becasue if it was, the church would already be teaching it.

Proof of this comes here, from YinYangMom

Apparently you do not trust Jesus’ promise that the teachings on faith and morals from the Church would forever be protected by the Holy Spirit so that She could never err on those matters.

A further burden comes from the simple fact that if through prayer and research you come to the conclusion that the Church is Profoundly Wrong on the issue you are accussed of no longerbeing a Catholic, of being mislead by pride, or for the love o your freinds.

So, there is no point in explaining explain WHY you think homosexuality is morally sound, and what the evidence is.

 

[Digger71]

Eireann:

---

Romans :24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Of course, this is what happens when you don’t read the whole thing.

Lets step back.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. … 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

So, what we have here is NOT a condemnation of homosexuals. The story goes.

1. Men knew about god
2. They instead worshipped images of mortal men, birds, animals and reptiles
3. THEREFORE god made them have gay sex as a punishement because that was not NATURAL for THOSE people.

So, in reading the passages before the ‘wherefore’ , with CONTEXT we see that God was punishing idolators (and to make sure we get the message Pauls mentions idolatry TWICE) by making them burn with lust for their own sex.

How then can these passages be used to condemn homosexuality?

I leave the reader to answer that question for themselves. But part of the answer is to:

1. Insist that everyone is heterosexual
2. Forget idolatry was being punshied.

There’s a lot more to say on this subject, you could argue that homosexual are being punished for something, which is why they are homosexual (that’s what the ‘wherefore’ suggests) but how would we square this with the knowledge that sexual orientation seems to be set very early on in life, possibly in the womb (queue arguments this could never be so because the Church says so-and-so).

This, of course, does not reference the teachings the Church. But the posting I am refering to was about direct biblical quotes, so that is not the issue.

Things I have looked up for this post.

answers.com/topic/wherefore

answers.com/topic/idol

biblescripture.net/Romans.html

 

[Digger71]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eireann
Matt:4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

Once again the question of context. Atomising the bible is not a good way to progress. Someone could turn around and justify torturing children by claiming “Suffer little Children” was a direction. Naturally the rest of us would go “Hey, the rest of that passage reads ‘to come unto me’”. And we would be right.

Immediately beofre the quote we see that he is expressly addressing the issue of DIVORCE, not homosexuality:

3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

and immediately after:

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So, this passage refers to divorce, not homosexuality. But Jesus is very specific in saying this is NOT a universal instruction to all men. The passages continue:

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

So, not all men are able to marry:

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So, we know that the message is

1. Do not divorce
2. Not everyone CAN get married (eunuchs)

As we know language changes over time, so you may need to read up on eunuchs to understand this last reference.

well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm

well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm

Again, this does not refer to the Churches teaching, but to reading scripture. A full reading makes it clear that Jesus did not say marriage was for everyone. What he said was that divorce is a no-no.

 

[bones_IV]

Libero,
I think you are confused about the indulgences and what you said is a perfect example of historical reductionism. The indulengces were abused and just misunderstood and its true that Leo X did sell indulgences but I think you have a grave misunderstanding of what papal infallibility is.

"Three conditions for a dogmatic, infallible pronouncement.

1. The pronouncement must be made by a lawful successor to Peter – in other words, a pope.
2. The subject matter of the declaration must be in the area of faith or morals. It doesn’t fall within the ponfiff’s ability to make infallible declarations on science, economics, history, ect.
3. The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, officially, from the office of Peter. In this way, he must specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine binding the Church to its assent".
   Patrick Madrid, Pope fiction p. 137