The religious tolerance site is riddled with errors in Biblical scholarship according to you and Catholic theology. But you are correct the subject of this thread is Catholics and thank you at least for including the word “practicing” in your last sentence.
Indeed, that is what is meant. And I think unstated part is clear to those who hear it. If someone were to say that John Walker Lindh is not a real American, would you challenge that and say “Well, his birth certificate says so!”
Awesome links! Thanks!
Because I’m just giving the clear Catholic answer as to who is a Catholic, Suddy, so as not to confuse people as to who the Church identifies as a Catholic. I do know the faithful Catholic believes the unfaithful Catholic always has the chance to repent for being unfaithful until their dying last breath. But I make it a point not to judge what is better or worse, Suudy.
You’re welcome. And thank you also for correctly remarking that my position regarding the errors on the website are reinforced by the position of Catholic theology.
To what end? What are you trying to accomplish?
Then why worry about the distinction at all?
No digression Elizabeth. I merely pointed out the actual Church definition of who is a Catholic. But lets say a Catholic would advise someone to follow their conscience on just one matter even if what the 2nd Catholic believes his or her conscience is telling them, is not the Catholic position. But then if the 1st Catholic is in a public discussion about the issue, they fail to disclose their private viewpoint of following conscience on that one issue. Not certain that would equate to being honest publicly.
Suudy, you might think there is no confusion and it is quite clear to everyone out there because, like me, you know the definition of who is a Catholic according to Catholic teaching. But if someone is lurking, and unlike us has absolutely no idea whatsover about how the Church defines Her membership, and they see people on a Catholic answers site going around saying you can not be a Catholic if this or that, they might actually think that is the Church’s teaching on who She claims can identify as and counts as a Catholic. Maybe it would be somewhat more helpful to distinguish between faithful and unfaithful a bit more often is all I mean. But anyway go ahead back to what the Pope said about how the Catholic Church can not accept gay marriage. Peace to you Suudy.
I think this is a red herring that you’re describing. Justice and Charity require not giving scandal, and not misleading fellow Catholics who are in doubt. And Truth does not require disclosing hidden private doubts (i.e., private dissenting conscience). That is not a technicality. That accords with essential Catholic moral theology and spirituality. Prudence always governs our speech, relative to whom might be scandalized.
I guess I don’t see it. Before I was Catholic, I didn’t interpret anyone saying “you aren’t Catholic” to mean anything other than “unfaithful”. Indeed, I didn’t interpret any similar statement about any characteristic to challenge the fundamental nature of what they claim. And I don’t see that confusion here either. I think people know how to read between the lines, and when they hear “you can not be pro choice and be Catholic,” they know what is meant.
Apparently you have not read his book, yet you feel free to make groundless claims about McNeill and about his book.in which case McNeil did not understand “the culture of the time,” nor Mosaic law. It is unequivocal that homosexual behavior was condemned by Mosaic law; it is unequivocal that Jesus was a devout follower of the Mosaic law, and represented its fullness. The history is unequivocal that Jews distinguished themselves from the Romans quite deliberately in several areas – one of which was assimilation of homosexuality as routine within the Roman culture. And all of the biblical scholarship which I personally respect (Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic) from the combined body of work of these Greek & Hebrew scholars, supports this view.
And in any case, it would have been a completely unthinkable proposition to the Jews of Jesus’ time (and therefore to Jesus Himself) that homosexuals should “marry” - IOW, that there should be some kind of institutionalized, state recogniition of a theoretically parallel or equivalent pairing to heterosexual arrangements, and/or a religious celebration of such pairings – formalized by the religious authorities.
Anything else is a thorough failure to understand the anthropology and history of the ancient Mediterranean.
Further, McNeil is one of the founders of Dignity, a group which which opposes Church teaching on sexuality. This guy has an agenda, major. In his Foreword are some rather inaccurate statements which hardly bolster any argument about his “scholarship.” The additional politically charged comments in the Foreward about how “the Vatican hates all things gay” merely reinforces the polemic nature of this book, and its obvious lack of objectivity. He also pulls out the tired, discredited Sin of Sodom as “inhospitality” – a subject which has been thoroughly discussed on this forum and in many scholarly venues. The entire Foreward is a study in emotionally charged rhetoric and is one of the most unbalanced pieces I have ever read.
And I love his sources being the cough APA and the NYT.
And here’s the clincher with regard to his cough objectivity:
Yeah, he’s not biased. Please.
I have read many excerpts, including the entire hate-filled Foreword which urges that the Vatican be “defanged” and is riddled with theological error.
You are not my opposition. You are on the losing side of a social debate. We both know that. The battle is over.I have read many excerpts, including the entire hate-filled Foreword which urges that the Vatican be “defanged” and is riddled with theological error.
Nice unsuccessful try, though, to discredit your opposition.
You wish.
And that’s just part of the Gay Lobby propaganda machine.I don’t need to read the entire book to determine that what I have read is riddled with error in its foundation, and that the entire purpose of the book was a rant by an admittedly active homosexual priest.
Inaccurately.
And yes, I read that part in particular. It’s full of error in scholarship and amateur argument.It appears that you are the one flailing.
Oh but it does. It drives you crazy that not only the Catholic Church but that most in America still oppose the gay lifestyle that you celebrate. And that’s why you keep posting here. It’s pretty transparent.
Tantum, what exactly is Benedict going to do with Catholics who support gay marriage? Excommunicated Catholics are still considered Catholics. They are told not to receive the Sacraments until reconciled. Is he going to remove the indelible, permanent mark placed upon one’s soul which has made them a member of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church?
How can you be Catholic and support gay ‘marriage,’ - the two are incompatible! If a Politician can be excommunicated for voting pro abortion or supporting gay ‘marriage’, then must extend to other people too.
many catholics in hell.
No, Matt. But since the Church has the power to ‘bind and loose’, a Catholic who chooses to be a non-orthodox Catholic in obstinately defying the teaching of the Church will HIMSELF (or HERSELF) be liable for that disobedience. . .and its consequences. What Pope Benedict has done and will continue to do is make the teaching of the Church clear. In the end, I’m sure you remember St. Matthew’s scripture about how 'not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter heaven, because while a person might CLAIM, “oh Lord I am a Catholic” the Lord will say, “But you denied and defied the Catholicism you claim to be part of; if you deny it still, your will be done, you have rejected Me.”