Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[estesbob]

estesbob;7179785:

Shark jumping is good aerobic exercise!

Then all of us in CAF must be in good shape because we see a lot of that here

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/fonzsharkjump-300x300.jpg

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you. You might add the Carmelites, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Jesuits as well, at least the ones with whom I interact.

Don’t besmirch an entire order because of a few whom you’ve met. That is uncharitable. Heterodox views of an individual lay person, priest, bishop or religious do not change the teaching of the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

Don’t besmirch an entire order because of a few whom you’ve met. That is uncharitable. Heterodox views of an individual lay person, priest, bishop or religious do not change the teaching of the Church.

Did you read to the end of the sentence? I qualified the apodosis with the protasis “at least the ones with whom I interact.”

 

[rlg94086]

Did you read to the end of the sentence? I qualified the apodosis with the protasis “at least the ones with whom I interact.”

Yes, but you still implied that the larger group was included with your use of “at least” and by listing them as “the Franciscans, the Jesuits, etc.” It is a weaselly way to use words.

Bottom line - it really doesn’t matter how many heterodox Catholics you interact with. The idea that your misplaced compassion allows you to turn your back on Church teaching is still erroneous. The fact that you spread that heterdoxy is even more disconcerting.

 

[estesbob]

Don’t besmirch an entire order because of a few whom you’ve met. That is uncharitable. Heterodox views of an individual lay person, priest, bishop or religious do not change the teaching of the Church.

Agreed. Not a single one of these orders supports homosexual marriage. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing and as you point out is a slur on the fine people the blonder these orders.

 

[StAnastasia]

Agreed. Not a single one of these orders supports homosexual marriage. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing and as you point out is a slur on the fine people the blonder these orders.

I’m not sure what “blonder” means, but I agree with you. None of these orders supports homosexual marriage, as I don’t myself!

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, but you still implied that the larger group was included with your use of “at least” and by listing them as “the Franciscans, the Jesuits, etc.” It is a weaselly way to use words.

“At least” is a qualification; I did not mean to imply the larger orders agreed. I know many priests among them would probably come down hard on homosexual activity.

Bottom line - it really doesn’t matter how many heterodox Catholics you interact with. The idea that your misplaced compassion allows you to turn your back on Church teaching is still erroneous. The fact that you spread that heterdoxy is even more disconcerting.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I don’t spread this heterodoxy; I merely relate to LGBT people as human beings.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t spread this heterodoxy; I merely relate to LGBT people as human beings.

So, in your teaching capacities (CCD? Schools?), you don’t teach Catholics that supporting homosexual unions is okay? Great. It gladdens my heart to hear that. I hope you will embrace the entirety of Church teaching some day, but at least you aren’t teaching others to follow in your path.

I also relate to people as human beings. I don’t know of any other way.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Church does not agree with you, Rich, because her mission is to be a beacon of light and truth to the world including those unbelievers. Whether or not they accept the message is irrelevant to the mandate, “Go ye therefore and baptize all nations…” The Church with full authority must speak out against homosexual unions, which is a moral issue. See Post #59.

The Church’s mission is mostly irrelevant to those who are not believers. You and I accept what the Church teaches out of faith. Whether it is objectively true doesn’t matter. I accept the Church and its teaching because I submit to its authority out of faith and belief, not from anything empirically provable.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Church with full authority must speak out against homosexual unions, which is a moral issue. See Post #59.

It may do so and ought to do so with the expectation of making that position binding on Catholics. The Catholic Church can’t expect anyone else to do more than listen and consider its position on gay marriage, and possibly be persuaded.

 

[StAnastasia]

So, in your teaching capacities (CCD? Schools?), you don’t teach Catholics that supporting homosexual unions is okay? Great. It gladdens my heart to hear that.

I don’t teach CCD. I teach in a Catholic college (church history, science and religion). The subject does not come up in my classes.

I hope you will embrace the entirety of Church teaching some day, but at least you aren’t teaching others to follow in your path.

 

[larkin31]

The Church’s mission is mostly irrelevant to those who are not believers. You and I accept what the Church teaches out of faith. Whether it is objectively true doesn’t matter. I accept the Church and its teaching because I submit to its authority out of faith and belief, not from anything empirically provable.

I respect the honesty and sincerity and clear-headed faith in this statement.

 

[larkin31]

The Church does not agree with you, Rich, because her mission is to be a beacon of light and truth to the world including those unbelievers. Whether or not they accept the message is irrelevant to the mandate, “Go ye therefore and baptize all nations…” The Church with full authority must speak out against homosexual unions, which is a moral issue. See Post #59.

You might pick adultery and divorce, sexual/marital practices engaged in by, say, 50 times as many people. But, you can establish your own priority list for proselytizing.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Direct abortion, even in this tragic instance, cannot be justified in any way.

That is a wonderful academic exercise. But, I’ve yet to meet the priest who looked into a young husband’s eyes and told him both his wife and unborn baby must die for him to be faithful to the Church.

 

[larkin31]

That is a wonderful academic exercise. But, I’ve yet to meet the priest who looked into a young husband’s eyes and told him both his wife and unborn baby must die for him to be faithful to the Church.

The priest that married me told me and my wife that contraception was a personal decision. He also told us what the official church position was. He had a parish on a college campus. He had contact with different clientèle.

 

[StAnastasia]

You might pick adultery and divorce, sexual/marital practices engaged in by, say, 50 times as many people. But, you can establish your own priority list for proselytizing.

In my parish our “priority list” of sins includes murder, rape, predatory lending practices, social injustice, lack of health care for all, ecological destruction, species extinction, etc.

 

[StAnastasia]

That is a wonderful academic exercise. But, I’ve yet to meet the priest who looked into a young husband’s eyes and told him both his wife and unborn baby must die for him to be faithful to the Church.

I can’t imagine a priest being so harsh as to do so, but I suspect there are some who would.

 

[Tigg]

The Church’s mission is mostly irrelevant to those who are not believers.

Please read what you wrote!

Non-believers may think it irrelevant and reject truth by virtue of their free will, but that in no way detracts from the purpose of the Church, whose sole mission as commissioned by Christ is the salvation of souls. The truth of the message must still be spread, regardless of how it is received.

 

[Tigg]

That is a wonderful academic exercise. But, I’ve yet to meet the priest who looked into a young husband’s eyes and told him both his wife and unborn baby must die for him to be faithful to the Church.

Then apparently you also reject the teaching that “the end does not justify the means,” or believe that immoral, unethical and unjust acts can be rationalized.

 

[TEPO]

Please read what you wrote!

Non-believers may think it irrelevant and reject truth by virtue of their free will, but that in no way detracts from the purpose of the Church, whose sole mission as commissioned by Christ is the salvation of souls. The truth of the message must still be spread, regardless of how it is received.

But Jesus did’nt “impose” anything on anyone… He told them the truth, and left it up to them from there.

God also, in the beginning, did not “impose” anything on anyone… He gave us all free will to choose independently for ourselves… It was only satan who “imposed” his will through persuasion.

Why should we impose?