Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[NewEnglandPriest]

They may be Catholics just like Jews are Jews, but that doesnt mean they are being pleasing to God. that is what matters the most.

Indeed! But just because someone exteriorly says all the right things doesn’t mean that they’re actually doing them (i.e. Robert Hansen).
And on top of that, we are all sinners, and sin is not pleasing to God,.

Because of the liberalism in the Church since the last Council, Catholics seem to believe that they can pick and choose and still be ok with the Church. There is not so.

Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” have little value or practicality in describing things within the Church. Either something is within the teachings of the Church or outside of the teachings of the Church.
No one would really call Archbishop Lefebvre a “liberal”, yet his rejection of several Vatican II documents is equally as heterodox as any other group.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

They may be Catholics just like Jews are Jews, but that doesnt mean they are being pleasing to God. that is what matters the most. And we should be concerned for their souls. It is not what you want to believe, it is to follow all that the Church teaches and defends. If one is causing scandals the whole body suffers. It is not supposed to be this way. Because of the liberalism in the Church since the last Council, Catholics seem to believe that they can pick and choose and still be ok with the Church. There is not so.

Good points all. I’d only substitute “heterodoxy” for “liberalism” because their acts aren’t liberal at all, they are opinions at variance with the Church’s orthodox teachings.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

No one would really call Archbishop Lefebvre a “liberal”, yet his rejection of several Vatican II documents is equally as heterodox as any other group.

Nor would our “conservative” posters want to embrace him as a fellow conservative. One is either with or not with the Church; there’s no left or right about it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Good points all. I’d only substitute “heterodoxy” for “liberalism” because their acts aren’t liberal at all, they are opinions at variance with the Church’s orthodox teachings.

Heterodox vs orthodox is a good description.
And support for gay marriage is neither liberal nor orthodox but is an ideal that emanates from the left. It is an ideal created by left and supported by leftists over and above any faith statements that our religions would hold us to.

Hence the confusion of terms.

The difference between liberal and left is graphically described by the differences between Catholics such as Cold War warrior John Kennedy and his younger brother Teddy. John Kennedy is representative of a Catholic liberal, and Teddy Kennedy is representative of what happened to so many Catholcis once the leftist progressive ideology went mainstream and transformed the Democratic party into one which defines itself increasingly through such things as women’s rights( ie abortion) and diversity (ie gay rights and gay marriage).

 

[Darryl1958]

Nor would our “conservative” posters want to embrace him as a fellow conservative. One is either with or not with the Church; there’s no left or right about it.

A conservative he may well be, but what he is not is an orthodox Catholic.
But if his views on abortion and gay marriage are more orthodox than those of the 60% of Catholics who have strayed into leftist hetorodoxy, then these are issues with which we can work with him on.

And conservatism and conservative political parties in general by and large gives a platform in which people of different faith traditions can get together to oppose what leftism is doing to our society.

The example fo Bart Supak on the other hand amply demonstrated that the arguments of the liberal, orthodox Catholics will not bear fruits in a party that is overwhelmingly leftist and is driven toward the leftist goals of women’s rights and diversity (ie abortion and gay marriage).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Indeed! But just because someone exteriorly says all the right things doesn’t mean that they’re actually doing them (i.e. Robert Hansen).
And on top of that, we are all sinners, and sin is not pleasing to God,.

Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” have little value or practicality in describing things within the Church. Either something is within the teachings of the Church or outside of the teachings of the Church.
No one would really call Archbishop Lefebvre a “liberal”, yet his rejection of several Vatican II documents is equally as heterodox as any other group.

Except that Arch. Lefrev did not abandon the Faith but fought to preserve it. something that the heterodox or you whaterver you want to call it stayed in teh Church and caused much damaged. cause the loss of much of the Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thank God for the Archbishop.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Except that Arch. Lefrev did not abandon the Faith but fought to preserve it. something that the heterodox or you whaterver you want to call it stayed in teh Church and caused much damaged. cause the loss of much of the Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thank God for the Archbishop.

In rejecting the authority of the Vatican, he was more on the order of Martin Luther than anything else. The only good thing that came out of his schism was the establishment of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) who are loyal to the Vatican, unlike the Lefebvrites, and who preserve the Tridentine Mass, which is offered here in several locations in the Little Rock Diocese.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Except that Arch. Lefrev did not abandon the Faith but fought to preserve it. something that the heterodox or you whaterver you want to call it stayed in teh Church and caused much damaged. cause the loss of much of the Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thank God for the Archbishop.

LOL, ok.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Heterodox vs orthodox is a good description.
And support for gay marriage is neither liberal nor orthodox but is an ideal that emanates from the left.

Hate to tell you this, but gay marriage isn’t just supported by Leftists, but by a growing number of Rightists. These seem to be folks who are more fiscal conservatives than social conservatives, or who lean toward libertarianism.

 

[wisdomseeker]

In rejecting the authority of the Vatican, he was more on the order of Martin Luther than anything else. The only good thing that came out of his schism was the establishment of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) who are loyal to the Vatican, unlike the Lefebvrites, and who preserve the Tridentine Mass, which is offered here in several locations in the Little Rock Diocese.

I think you got it wrong on this. SSPX has nothing of protestantism. It kept the Mass of our Fathers.

 

[rlg94086]

I think you got it wrong on this. SSPX has nothing of protestantism. It kept the Mass of our Fathers.

Sure it does. Denying papal authority is very protestant.

 

[estesbob]

Sure it does. Denying papal authority is very protestant.

Yup About as Protestant as you can get

 

[Darryl1958]

Hate to tell you this, but gay marriage isn’t just supported by Leftists, but by a growing number of Rightists. These seem to be folks who are more fiscal conservatives than social conservatives, or who lean toward libertarianism.

Oh yes, there are many on the right now who see scrapping secular marriage altogether as the way out. The radical libertarian often doesn’t want any laws of any kind.

This is a fringe of the ideals that are broadly labeled as right.

But that does not change the fact in any way that the advance of calls for gay marriage emanates from the left, is predominately supported from the left, and that gays themselves predominately align themselves with the left and not the right.
Gay marriage is a fringe issue for the right. For the left, it has gone mainstream. It is a complete denial of reality in fact to pretend that gay rights are anything but an issue of the left.

 

[Califman831]

Sure it does. Denying papal authority is very protestant.

NO he accepted papal authority which laid down a mass for the ages and rejecting this new mass with it circus like music and and lack of reverence for the altar. God bless the late great Bishop.

 

[OriginalJS]

The pending question of homosexual unions is a legal, secular question, not a spiritual one. When the Church involves itself in politics and attempts to decree how Catholics should stand on political issues, it should expect that many won’t agree with it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

NO he accepted papal authority which laid down a mass for the ages and rejecting this new mass with it circus like music and and lack of reverence for the altar. God bless the late great Bishop.

The Pope says the Novus Ordo Mass. Have you ever watched it on TV? Where’s the circus-like music? Do you attend Mass at a parish where the priest uses the Novus Ordo? Where’s the circus-like music? Does the Pope, in saying the Novus Ordo Mass, show a lack of reverence for the altar? Does the priest in your parish show a lack of reverence? And, BTW, if the music at Mass were circus-like, how does that make the Mass invalid?

Levebvre was schismatic, he was not in full union with the Holy Father. He was, as noted, a Protestant on the order of Luther. There’s no justifying what he did.

 

[jackangelo1]

Given over 50% of “Catholic” voted for Obama this should not surprise anyone

ALOT of ignorant people voted for COMRADE OBAMA. I wrote to three TeaParty leaders ,asking them where they stand on Social Issues, they repled , They DO NOT take a stand on Social Issues, And they are NOT aPolitical Party??? I can’t figure that out?

 

[jackangelo1]

Good points all. I’d only substitute “heterodoxy” for “liberalism” because their acts aren’t liberal at all, they are opinions at variance with the Church’s orthodox teachings.

Like all organisations ,Apartments ,or Religions ,there are some that don’t follow rules and regulations??? Republicans In Name Only ,RINO, To make my point. So Catholics In Name Only ,CINO. i’VE been fighting that for over 40 years, get rid of RINOs ,and CINOs? Especially The Catholics In Name Only, their Disruptive!

 

[edwest2]

The pending question of homosexual unions is a legal, secular question, not a spiritual one. When the Church involves itself in politics and attempts to decree how Catholics should stand on political issues, it should expect that many won’t agree with it.

The Church should expect no such thing, especially from obedient Catholics.

And homosexual unions is a question that involves the souls of those involved. The Church did not initiate this.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tigg]

The pending question of homosexual unions is a legal, secular question, not a spiritual one. When the Church involves itself in politics and attempts to decree how Catholics should stand on political issues, it should expect that many won’t agree with it.

Disagree! It is a moral question in which the Church has the full right and obligation to teach the truth of Christ.

**CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA**

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomun.htm