Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[EasterJoy]

Your second sentence is run-on. Please break it down if you want to be properly understood.

Are you or are you not comparing acceptance of homosexuality with acceptance of the Real Presence? If you’re not comparing them, then it’s apples and oranges and doesn’t apply.

“De facto schismatics”? “Duplicity”? Wow, just wow. Well, they should just stop going to Mass altogether, is that it? If you don’t believe 100%, hit the road, Jack! Just how full will the Churches be on Sundays if they only allow the one-hundred percenters through the doors? (facepalm) Or maybe the one-hundred percenters want it that way? Hmmm

It wasn’t much of jump.

Are you now speaking of demons? Because, in your sentence, you are clearly speaking of humans, unless, of course, demons are now categorizing themselves as “conservatives” and “liberals”…

You just can’t go around, making stuff up about a supposed gay conspiracy. It doesn’t exist.

What do you mean go around making stuff up? In 2010, when the Pope was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he wrote that the movement to invent a civil matrimony between persons of the same sex is “a ‘‘movement’’ of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God”–his words, not mine!

Are you telling me that it takes some gross leap of the imagination to listen to contemporary political rhetoric for even one turn of an election cycle and to come to the conclusion that the devil is at work? As then-Archbishop Bergoglio wrote: “Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan…”

Yes, the Catholic church teaches and I believe that demons really do exist and yes, what Catholics ought to do is to at least try to believe all that the Church teaches. When Catholics renew their baptismal vows every Easter season and agree out loud that we “reject Satan, all his works, and all his empty promises”, what do you think that means?

Is “one-hundred percenter” supposed to be some kind of a put-down? When you were at Easter Vigil last year, did you hear what the people said when they were received into the Church? This is what they said: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” Yes, they said all! If someone is teaching you that the Church has ever taught anything else, then that teacher is the one who has been making things up, not me.

Likewise, there is no way to argue that you can go to Church, participate in all the rituals, and yet not even try to believe everything the Church teaches without at the same time speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is not possible. There are denominations where this is possible, but ours is not one of them. I can tell you don’t like that, but do not shoot the messenger.

First of all, Francis was not Pope in 2010 so I can take his statement or leave it. I choose not to accept your interpretation of his statement. The Archbishop did not single out “those who seek to ‘redefine’ marriage”. Perhaps the Evil One has also put falsehoods into the ears of those who staunchly assert that they follow the word of the Lord and then, arrogantly, speak with prejudice against homosexuals, while puffing up their own chests with pride. The Prince of Lies also tells the one-hundred percenters that they are superior to all others.

Oy, vey. If you think it silly that a Catholic has to believe 100% of what the Church teaches, what on earth difference would it make whether or not something was said before or after the Pope became Pope? I was only responding to your request to prove that I wasn’t making all this stuff up myself. At any rate, if you have never heard the Holy Father referring to the work of the devil, you aren’t someone who goes to the trouble to read the full texts of what he has said and written since becoming Pope. The difference between that and what you read in the New York Times might surprise you.

Who said that people pushing gay marriage are the only ones deceived? I did not. To the contrary, I wrote “I do not mean that the gay marriage movement is particularly given over to these lies, but that these lies have become ubiquitous, used by the conservative and liberal alike, used by anyone who really wants their own pet falsehood written into the foundational stones of society.” Yes, anyone! I do not mean that they are consciously lying, but that being deceived even a person who wants to be of good will can preach a pack of lies. I do not know why that is so hard to believe, since there isn’t a person reading this who hasn’t accepted deception himself or herself in order to pursue self-will over the will of God. It is as old as Adam and Eve.

 

[EasterJoy]

*No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)* --Humanae Vitae

Having established that, consider this:

"*There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)-- *“Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons,” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2003

and from the same document, this:

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.” – ibid.

This last document outlines why the Church teaches why “clear and emphatic opposition” is a duty of Catholics. It goes into great detail, including footnotes. Anyone who really wants to know what the Church teaches and why the Church teaches what it does concerning matrimony between persons of the same sex ought to read it.

Just in case the online posting has not already been posted in this thread:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[NeedsMercy]

What do you mean go around making stuff up? In 2010, when the Pope was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he wrote that the movement to invent a civil matrimony between persons of the same sex is “a ‘‘movement’’ of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God”–his words, not mine!

Please read my post again. I did not say that you made up stuff about Archbishop Bergoglio. I said that you posted with certainty that there is a “gay marriage movement” which will “win converts and crush resisters into submission, silence, irrelevance or even oblivion” whose existence you did not prove. If this is not a fantasy, start naming names. Give us sources as to the existence and motives of these people.

Are you telling me that it takes some gross leap of the imagination to listen to contemporary political rhetoric for even one turn of an election cycle and to come to the conclusion that the devil is at work? As then-Archbishop Bergoglio wrote: “Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan…”

You give your evaluation of the desire for same sex marriage, and, from that, insist there is some grand conspiracy among homosexuals. Now that’s a “jump”!

Yes, the Catholic church teaches and I believe that demons really do exist

I didn’t ask you about whether or not you believed in demons.

and yes, what Catholics ought to do is to at least try to believe all that the Church teaches.

How do you know for sure that they are not?

When Catholics renew their baptismal vows every Easter season and agree out loud that we “reject Satan, all his works, and all his empty promises”, what do you think that means?

This is totally tangential to my argument, which is the total non-existence of a gay agenda.

Is “one-hundred percenter” supposed to be some kind of a put-down?

You don’t know?

When you were at Easter Vigil last year, did you hear what the people said when they were received into the Church? This is what they said: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” Yes, they said all! If someone is teaching you that the Church has ever taught anything else, then that teacher is the one who has been making things up, not me.

I am a cradle Catholic, and was never in RCIA. Who’s the teacher that you’re talking about?

Likewise, there is no way to argue that you can go to Church, participate in all the rituals, and yet not even try to believe everything the Church teaches without at the same time speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is not possible. There are denominations where this is possible, but ours is not one of them. I can tell you don’t like that, but do not shoot the messenger.

Again, how do you know who is or isn’t trying to believe? How can you tell what I am or am not thinking? Do you have the gift of discerning hearts?

Oy, vey. If you think it silly that a Catholic has to believe 100% of what the Church teaches, what on earth difference would it make whether or not something was said before or after the Pope became Pope? I was only responding to your request to prove that I wasn’t making all this stuff up myself. At any rate, if you have never heard the Holy Father referring to the work of the devil, you aren’t someone who goes to the trouble to read the full texts of what he has said and written since becoming Pope. The difference between that and what you read in the New York Times might surprise you.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never used the word “silly”. Don’t know where you got that. And when last I looked, an Archbishop does not bear the authority of a Pope in matters of Catholic teaching. You have not provided any proof as to the existence of gay movement, gay conspiracy, gay agenda, whatever. That was what I wanted.

How do you know what I read or don’t read? And what does this have to do with the point of my argument? And for the record, nothing surprises me anymore…

Who said that people pushing gay marriage are the only ones deceived? I did not. To the contrary, I wrote “I do not mean that the gay marriage movement is particularly given over to these lies, but that these lies have become ubiquitous, used by the conservative and liberal alike, used by anyone who really wants their own pet falsehood written into the foundational stones of society.” Yes, anyone! I do not mean that they are consciously lying, but that being deceived even a person who wants to be of good will can preach a pack of lies. I do not know why that is so hard to believe, since there isn’t a person reading this who hasn’t accepted deception himself or herself in order to pursue self-will over the will of God. It is as old as Adam and Eve.

I agree that all people can be deceived, but that still doesn’t mean that there is a gay agenda.

 

[DiZent]

For those who don’t believe that there is a gay agenda.

“Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}”… “Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof… the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not” (p. 152-153)

Direct quotes from the book After the Ball by Kirk & Madsen

 

[EasterJoy]

Please read my post again. I did not say that you made up stuff about Archbishop Bergoglio. I said that you posted with certainty that there is a “gay marriage movement” which will “win converts and crush resisters into submission, silence, irrelevance or even oblivion” whose existence you did not prove. If this is not a fantasy, start naming names. Give us sources as to the existence and motives of these people.

You give your evaluation of the desire for same sex marriage, and, from that, insist there is some grand conspiracy among homosexuals. Now that’s a “jump”!

I didn’t ask you about whether or not you believed in demons.

How do you know for sure that they are not?

This is totally tangential to my argument, which is the total non-existence of a gay agenda.

You don’t know?

I am a cradle Catholic, and was never in RCIA. Who’s the teacher that you’re talking about?

Again, how do you know who is or isn’t trying to believe? How can you tell what I am or am not thinking? Do you have the gift of discerning hearts?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never used the word “silly”. Don’t know where you got that. And when last I looked, an Archbishop does not bear the authority of a Pope in matters of Catholic teaching. You have not provided any proof as to the existence of gay movement, gay conspiracy, gay agenda, whatever. That was what I wanted.

How do you know what I read or don’t read? And what does this have to do with the point of my argument? And for the record, nothing surprises me anymore…

I agree that all people can be deceived, but that still doesn’t mean that there is a gay agenda.

I’ve been posting here for a long time, and I rarely run across someone as willfully argumentative as you have been here. I don’t think you have any desire to understand what I mean. You want to be right and you want to keep open the possibility that gay marriage is right even though the Church has declared it unacceptable and a violation of natural law in unequivocal terms–what am I missing?

If you have not been taught that a Catholic ought to believe all that the Church teaches or you somehow have the impression that the Church has been in any way ambiguous about the question of gay marriage, you have been short-changed as to catechesis. If no teacher taught you that, it is in the documents posted here.

As for your charges that I believe there is a “conspiracy” (not to mention your rude reference to tin foil hats), I did not use that word. The phrase I used was a “pack of lies.” As for whether or not there is any “gay agenda,” I think you’re going to have to describe for me how it is proven that a group has an agenda, so we can be on the same page. After all, perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. Name a group that does have an agenda and how you know that they do, and then I will have a better idea of what kind of evidence you’re looking for.

How do I know what people are trying to believe? They say what they believe or don’t believe, they write articles and opinion pieces, and such, and I take their word for it. Is that too uncharitable of me? For instance, let us consider the situation when Nancy Pelosi blasts a bill that would prohibit late term abortions except to protect the life of the mother by saying ““As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics,” I believe that she is not trying to believe that abortion is a grave evil that every Catholic has a duty to oppose, nor does she believe that rejecting the authority of the Church about the truth that abortion is a grave evil and a violation of natural law that may never be justly defended disqualifies her as a “faithful Catholic.” She openly, publicly, and scandalously rejects what the Church teaches, she works hard to make abortions available to others, and she openly receives Holy Communion. Am I to believe that she is trying to believe abortion is gravely wrong? Has she and Joe Biden not publicly defended access to abortion and have they not received Holy Communion even at the Vatican itself? My intention is not to read hearts, but to read actions. Where am I leaping to conclusions?

The Church teaches that gay marriage is seriously wrong and that Catholics must oppose the establishment of gay marriage is secular law. Catholics with political power must oppose abortion in whatever way is reasonably open to them. If you believe that or try to believe that, why are we having an argument at all?

If I have taken you wrong, please clarify. I have often admitted a mistaken impression after another poster has clarified their meaning and I have offered apologies accordingly. I am not putting you on; there are other posters here who will vouch for me.

 

[Rau]

I’ve been posting here for a long time, and I rarely run across someone as willfully argumentative as you have been here. I don’t think you have any desire to understand what I mean. You want to be right and you want to keep open the possibility that gay marriage is right even though the Church has declared it unacceptable and a violation of natural law in unequivocal terms–what am I missing?

If you have not been taught that a Catholic ought to believe all that the Church teaches or you somehow have the impression that the Church has been in any way ambiguous about the question of gay marriage, you have been short-changed as to catechesis. If no teacher taught you that, it is in the documents posted here.

As for your charges that I believe there is a “conspiracy” (not to mention your rude reference to tin foil hats), I did not use that word. The phrase I used was a “pack of lies.” As for whether or not there is any “gay agenda,” I think you’re going to have to describe for me how it is proven that a group has an agenda, so we can be on the same page. After all, perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. Name a group that does have an agenda and how you know that they do, and then I will have a better idea of what kind of evidence you’re looking for.

How do I know what people are trying to believe? They say what they believe or don’t believe, they write articles and opinion pieces, and such, and I take their word for it. Is that too uncharitable of me? For instance, let us consider the situation when Nancy Pelosi blasts a bill that would prohibit late term abortions except to protect the life of the mother by saying ““As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics,” I believe that she is not trying to believe that abortion is a grave evil that every Catholic has a duty to oppose, nor does she believe that rejecting the authority of the Church about the truth that abortion is a grave evil and a violation of natural law that may never be justly defended disqualifies her as a “faithful Catholic.” She openly, publicly, and scandalously rejects what the Church teaches, she works hard to make abortions available to others, and she openly receives Holy Communion. Am I to believe that she is trying to believe abortion is gravely wrong? Has she and Joe Biden not publicly defended access to abortion and have they not received Holy Communion even at the Vatican itself? My intention is not to read hearts, but to read actions. Where am I leaping to conclusions?

The Church teaches that gay marriage is seriously wrong and that Catholics must oppose the establishment of gay marriage is secular law. Catholics with political power must oppose abortion in whatever way is reasonably open to them. If you believe that or try to believe that, why are we having an argument at all?

If I have taken you wrong, please clarify. I have often admitted a mistaken impression after another poster has clarified their meaning and I have offered apologies accordingly. I am not putting you on; there are other posters here who will vouch for me.

I think it is fair to say that the Catholic Church comes to this topic with an “Agenda”. There is nothing wrong in having an agenda. The gay community, through their representative bodies and spokespeople also come to this topic with an agenda. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda. We may however find fault in the substance of one’s agenda, or in the way it is prosecuted.

So, NeedsMercy, if you believe the gay community has no agenda, would you like to say anything about the Catholic Church’s Agenda? Or about the agenda of those who “speak with prejudice against homosexuals”? Hopefully there there is an agenda somewhere, or we may as well close the thread??

 

[NeedsMercy]

I’ve been posting here for a long time, and I rarely run across someone as willfully argumentative as you have been here. I don’t think you have any desire to understand what I mean. You want to be right and you want to keep open the possibility that gay marriage is right even though the Church has declared it unacceptable and a violation of natural law in unequivocal terms–what am I missing?

Nice to meet you, too! So I am “willfully argumentative” because I do not agree with you on the existence of a gay “movement” created on a “pack of lies”? For the record, I purposely stayed away from the totally separate topic of whether or not homosexuality was a “violation of natural law”.

If you have not been taught that a Catholic ought to believe all that the Church teaches or you somehow have the impression that the Church has been in any way ambiguous about the question of gay marriage, you have been short-changed as to catechesis. If no teacher taught you that, it is in the documents posted here.

Again, homosexuality as a sin, violation, perversion, whatever, is not the basis for my discussion with you.

As for your charges that I believe there is a “conspiracy” (not to mention your rude reference to tin foil hats), I did not use that word.

No, you did not. It was inferred from the use of the word “movement”. As to my remark about tin foil hats, yes, it was rude. But since I am “willfully argumentative” and “short-changed as to catechesis”, let’s call it a draw.

The phrase I used was a “pack of lies.” As for whether or not there is any “gay agenda,” I think you’re going to have to describe for me how it is proven that a group has an agenda, so we can be on the same page. After all, perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. Name a group that does have an agenda and how you know that they do, and then I will have a better idea of what kind of evidence you’re looking for.

How do I know what people are trying to believe? They say what they believe or don’t believe, they write articles and opinion pieces, and such, and I take their word for it. Is that too uncharitable of me? For instance, let us consider the situation when Nancy Pelosi blasts a bill that would prohibit late term abortions except to protect the life of the mother by saying ““As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics,” I believe that she is not trying to believe that abortion is a grave evil that every Catholic has a duty to oppose, nor does she believe that rejecting the authority of the Church about the truth that abortion is a grave evil and a violation of natural law that may never be justly defended disqualifies her as a “faithful Catholic.” She openly, publicly, and scandalously rejects what the Church teaches, she works hard to make abortions available to others, and she openly receives Holy Communion. Am I to believe that she is trying to believe abortion is gravely wrong? Has she and Joe Biden not publicly defended access to abortion and have they not received Holy Communion even at the Vatican itself? My intention is not to read hearts, but to read actions. Where am I leaping to conclusions?

The Church teaches that gay marriage is seriously wrong and that Catholics must oppose the establishment of gay marriage is secular law. Catholics with political power must oppose abortion in whatever way is reasonably open to them. If you believe that or try to believe that, why are we having an argument at all?

If I have taken you wrong, please clarify. I have often admitted a mistaken impression after another poster has clarified their meaning and I have offered apologies accordingly. I am not putting you on; there are other posters here who will vouch for me.

Can we agree to the following definitions?

movement: a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.

agenda: the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

My thought is that some people, Catholics, whomever, have the idea that homosexuals, on the surface, have as exterior goal the legalization of same sex marriage; but, in truth, have an evil ulterior motive. Is there some hidden grand scheme on the part of homosexuals to do…what? Break down the fabric of American society? Convert straight people? Crush Catholicism into dust?

If you don’t believe that they do, then we have no argument, because my discussion isn’t about whether homosexuality and gay marriage are acceptable/unacceptable.

Finally, I mentioned earlier that I did not like comparing belief in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality to belief in the Real Presence. Likewise, I do not like it being compared to the Church’s teaching on abortion. These are altogether separate issues. I will not engage you further in this thread on whether every Catholic accepts, without question or doubt, 100% of the Church’s teachings.

That’s it. That’s my :twocents:

 

[Rau]

Can we agree to the following definitions?

movement: a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.

agenda: the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

My thought is that some people, Catholics, whomever, have the idea that homosexuals, on the surface, have as exterior goal the legalization of same sex marriage; but, in truth, have an evil ulterior motive. Is there some hidden grand scheme on the part of homosexuals to do…what? Break down the fabric of American society? Convert straight people? Crush Catholicism into dust?

If you don’t believe that they do, then we have no argument, because my discussion isn’t about whether homosexuality and gay marriage are acceptable/unacceptable.

…

That’s it. That’s my :twocents:

Let’s put aside “conspiracy” since only you used the term. (I would suggest that “lies” (the term used by EasterJoy) do not a conspiracy make, rather they are evidence of a low grade, flawed prosecution of one’s case).

I don’t use “agenda” as you do. I mean the much plainer “list of objectives” that a movement seeks to achieve. What you describe seems more like a “hidden agenda” - something not exposed, but sought after. I’ve not come across that in these debates.

Plainly there is a gay agenda, which includes access to marriage (and nothing that is not exactly marriage is acceptable), recognition of family status (and the right to construct a family by any means possible), adoption rights, the characterisation of marriage (of homosexuals) as a civil right, characterisation of any who oppose gay marriage as bigoted and hateful. I don’t believe any aspect of this agenda is “hidden”, and I don’t believe the mere existence of this agenda is deserving of condemnation. I simply disagree that the objectives have merit.

So, alas, it comes down to semantics - do the “ideas” of the gay movement (which I think all agree exists) constitute an “agenda” (however defined)? Such a debate is only worth about:twocents: !

Did you want to share any thoughts on the substance of the thread?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Did you want to share any thoughts on the substance of the thread?

I don’t think that you–and a few others, including Easter Joy–want to hear my beliefs.

 

[mommy_k]

God accepts all sinners. He calls us not to lead others to sin. Is about the sin, and how do we repond to grandstanding a sin that the church has indicated as one. The question could be, do you think God approves this grandstanding for any sin.

I am for don’t ask don’t tell, and listen to the Pope and focus on love, charity, and what Jesus taught us. What gets me is that property could be divided amoungst gay couples without the use of the word marriage. If someone purposely pushes an agenda knowing the controversy and negative attention it brings-this is wrong to do. Not all gay individuals are this way, they want to live in peace, without attention.

Only God sees the intent of someones soul and mind. So in some cases he will pardon and others he will not- and this is true of any situation. If a gay couple know this is a sin, and purposely do it anyway, then they need to go to confession, like the rest of us do when we sin. If they do not realize it as a sin, then perhpas God will excuse them. No concrete answer to this.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nice to meet you, too! So I am “willfully argumentative” because I do not agree with you on the existence of a gay “movement” created on a “pack of lies”? For the record, I purposely stayed away from the totally separate topic of whether or not homosexuality was a “violation of natural law”.

Again, homosexuality as a sin, violation, perversion, whatever, is not the basis for my discussion with you.

No, you did not. It was inferred from the use of the word “movement”. As to my remark about tin foil hats, yes, it was rude. But since I am “willfully argumentative” and “short-changed as to catechesis”, let’s call it a draw.

Can we agree to the following definitions?

movement: a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.

agenda: the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

My thought is that some people, Catholics, whomever, have the idea that homosexuals, on the surface, have as exterior goal the legalization of same sex marriage; but, in truth, have an evil ulterior motive. Is there some hidden grand scheme on the part of homosexuals to do…what? Break down the fabric of American society? Convert straight people? Crush Catholicism into dust?

If you don’t believe that they do, then we have no argument, because my discussion isn’t about whether homosexuality and gay marriage are acceptable/unacceptable.

Finally, I mentioned earlier that I did not like comparing belief in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality to belief in the Real Presence. Likewise, I do not like it being compared to the Church’s teaching on abortion. These are altogether separate issues. I will not engage you further in this thread on whether every Catholic accepts, without question or doubt, 100% of the Church’s teachings.

That’s it. That’s my :twocents:

If you are only saying that the True Presence is a matter of faith and abortion and gay marriage are a matter of morals, that the former is a matter of the law of the Gospel and the latter are examples of natural law, then I will readily concede that. My point is that the Church has authority to teach in both matters of faith–the True Presence is an example–and in matters of morals, and has the standing and duty to teach not only to Catholics but to proclaim the truth to all of mankind. The Church teaches about the morality of abortion and homosexual acts with the same authority as she teaches about the meaning of the sacraments. All Catholics, moreover, have a duty to oppose unjust laws that are in opposition to the truths about natural law made known to them by the Church. This is the teaching of the magisterium, not mine!

There is a movement to establish gay marriage as a civil institution. As an example, those in this movement have bought air time to put commercials on the air in the area where I live, commercials meant to establish the idea in the minds of the general public that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. That is not the truth. It is a lie. They may not know it is a lie, in which case they are deceived, but it is a lie. As Church documents I have already posted put it, laws that give the legal status and rights belonging to marriage to homosexual unions are gravely unjust, and Catholics have a duty to oppose them. At the risk of belaboring the point, many bishops including the Pope have referred to this movement as being the work of the devil. I assure you that those pronouncements have been meant literally–absolutely not demonizing the persons in the movement, but rather assigning the source of their errors with all the seriousness it deserves, not being their own but belonging to the Evil One who seeks the ruin of souls through the use of deception. It is not binding that a Catholic believe theories put forth about the source of these errors, but it is binding that a Catholic accept that the Church teaches the truth about what moral law requires.

Whoever said that every Catholic accepts without doubt all that faith teaches? I never did. That much is entirely obvious from what Catholics say about themselves! Let me clarify: My point is that the Church teaches and has always taught that every Catholic has a duty to make an effort to accept all that the Church teaches as true and binding and has a duty to oppose what the Church has taught is gravely unjust. Some in our times deny that such a duty exists, arguing in favor of a false idea of “conscience” that puts no onus on Catholics to form their consciences rightly. Those people are in error. They may have no bad intention, but they are in error.

And yes, we can let the foil hats and such other rhetorical flourishes go. If I displayed a lack of charity towards you, it was not meant, but was in the heat of defending the truth. I am more than willing to believe the same about you!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If you are only saying that the True Presence is a matter of faith and abortion and gay marriage are a matter of morals, that the former is a matter of the law of the Gospel and the latter are examples of natural law, then I will readily concede that. My point is that the Church has authority to teach in both matters of faith–the True Presence is an example–and in matters of morals, and has the standing and duty to teach not only to Catholics but to proclaim the truth to all of mankind. The Church teaches about the morality of abortion and homosexual acts with the same authority as she teaches about the meaning of the sacraments. All Catholics, moreover, have a duty to oppose unjust laws that are in opposition to the truths about natural law made known to them by the Church. This is the teaching of the magisterium, not mine!

There is a movement to establish gay marriage as a civil institution. As an example, those in this movement have bought air time to put commercials on the air in the area where I live, commercials meant to establish the idea in the minds of the general public that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. That is not the truth. It is a lie. They may not know it is a lie, in which case they are deceived, but it is a lie. As Church documents I have already posted put it, laws that give the legal status and rights belonging to marriage to homosexual unions are gravely unjust, and Catholics have a duty to oppose them. At the risk of belaboring the point, many bishops including the Pope have referred to this movement as being the work of the devil. I assure you that those pronouncements have been meant literally–absolutely not demonizing the persons in the movement, but rather assigning the source of their errors with all the seriousness it deserves, not being their own but belonging to the Evil One who seeks the ruin of souls through the use of deception. It is not binding that a Catholic believe theories put forth about the source of these errors, but it is binding that a Catholic accept that the Church teaches the truth about what moral law requires.

Whoever said that every Catholic accepts without doubt all that faith teaches? I never did. That much is entirely obvious from what Catholics say about themselves! Let me clarify: My point is that the Church teaches and has always taught that every Catholic has a duty to make an effort to accept all that the Church teaches as true and binding and has a duty to oppose what the Church has taught is gravely unjust. Some in our times deny that such a duty exists, arguing in favor of a false idea of “conscience” that puts no onus on Catholics to form their consciences rightly. Those people are in error. They may have no bad intention, but they are in error.

And yes, we can let the foil hats and such other rhetorical flourishes go. If I displayed a lack of charity towards you, it was not meant, but was in the heat of defending the truth. I am more than willing to believe the same about you!

You have done a wonderful job of defending the truth, Easter Joy, without displaying a lack of charity at all, and in engaging the poster with calmness and class. In fact, the exchange has been illuminating to me and I would think to others who might be following the thread on the depth of your understanding of the teaching of the Church and the deception that some or many Catholics have bought into in these disturbing politically correct and morally relativistic times.

I have often wondered how a Catholic is able to say he or she believes in the wrongness of expressed homosexuality but is supportive or at the least not opposing gay “marriage,” as if there is an ocean dividing the two. And how someone could deny a gay agenda at play in all facets of culture in which we live.

At any rate, please don’t stop contributing your thoughts and counsel in this forum. They are of great value and much appreciated.
,

 

[CaliLobo]

PRMerger:

You seem to be unable to separate those who don’t follow the teachings of the Church with the actual teachings of the Church.

There is a distinction between heteropraxy and orthodoxy, Cali.

I wouldn’t denigrate democracy by citing examples of people who have been dictators.

Yes, but the people are the Church. Not just the Magisterium, or the building. If the people are committing abuses in the name of Christ, then whether you like it or not, that reflects badly on Christ, and it makes people less likely to follow Christ.

If people in a church abuse me, you can make excuses for their conduct, but it will still make me question whether this really is the God that I want to follow.

PRMerger:

Well, that’s just another example of a person who wants to create a god after the Almighty Self rather than discerning who God really is.

And by your reasoning, we could say, “Why would God give humans such strong feelings of hate, and then forbid us to hate?” (says the Westboro Baptist Church).

Or, “Why would God give humans such strong sexual feelings, and then forbid me to use them with a 10 yr old?” (says the pedophile).

Or, “Why would God give me such a strong desire to smoke crack, and then forbid me to use it?” (says the drug addict).

See, and the fact that the Catholic Church preaches sex only within heterosexual marriage, and yet harbors priests who have committed sex crimes against minors, makes me question whether the Catholic Church really is of God, and whether the Holy Spirit really is present in the Catholic Church. The fact that the spiritual leaders of the Catholic Church cannot follow the Church’s teachings regarding sex, means to me that perhaps we need to rethink whether what we thought were sexual sins, really are sexual sins.

If it weren’t for man-made religion, sex outside of marriage wouldn’t be wrong. Man-made religion is only a way for people to oppress other people…

By the way, you haven’t answered my question about why Poles, Irish, and Latin Americans are leaving the Catholic Church in droves. Why are they?

Rau:

1). Marriage is a unique institution, inherently sexual, that builds the society. SSA happens, and no one is called to pretend that it does not. I understand that the premise with which you come to this debate, ie. morality is up to “me” to decide, may not allow you to recognise any problem with homosexual relations.

2). I understand, but institutions are different. I tend to believe the rejection of civil unions has little to do with civil benefits. I understand the “need” for gay couples to feel that their union is just the same as “marriage”.

3). That approach would certainly provide all the freedom that anyone could possibly want. We can each write our own code! Are you truly ok with that?

4).

5). Some churches have exceptionally entertaining services. Fact. I just can’t see that that is compelling evidence of anything relevant to this discussion.

6). Do you sense you are talking to politicians on this thread? I think you know we are reasoning from a base of moral beliefs. I have no issue with a civil institution that addresses the practical care and comfort needs of same sex couples. Clearly, such an institution is not intrinsically sexual, and thus it is not marriage.

7). Sorry, I can’t follow the thread back far enough to answer, due to using mobile device.

8). Whether SSA is akin to the “thorn in my flesh” that St Paul spoke of, or a “disease”, or something else, I do not know, but it matters nought. The SSA is not itself a sinful thing, or a source of shame. Only the homosexual acts are that. Many gay persons struggle with their desires and seek to remain chaste.

You have no basis for levelling the “hate” accusation here. And every time you do, you diminish those who have truly experienced it.

Could we then agree with just one point? That, despite what the Vatican has written in its encyclicals, because the Vatican has committed so many historical abuses and errors, and because the teachings of Christ have been altered so many times over history, it is still possible for a person to be a faithful Christian and support same-sex marriage rights politically?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but the people are the Church. Not just the Magisterium, or the building. If the people are committing abuses in the name of Christ, then whether you like it or not, that reflects badly on Christ, and it makes people less likely to follow Christ.

Indeed.

But only a fool would leave Christ because his apostles were weak, no?

If people in a church abuse me, you can make excuses for their conduct, but it will still make me question whether this really is the God that I want to follow.

Right.

See, and the fact that the Catholic Church preaches sex only within heterosexual marriage, and yet harbors priests who have committed sex crimes against minors, makes me question whether the Catholic Church really is of God, and whether the Holy Spirit really is present in the Catholic Church.

Again you seem to have this curious inability to separate the teachings of the Church from those who do not follow the teachings.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[CaliLobo]

Again you seem to have this curious inability to separate the teachings of the Church from those who do not follow the teachings.

Why is that, do you think?

Because the church is Christ on earth. Because the church represents Christ and is his bride. Because the church is supposed to fulfill Christ’s mission that he entrusted to it.

You know what sucks about falling away? That my friends in church haven’t exactly reached out to me and offered to encourage, pray, and intervene, and convince me that I am in error. Instead I’m just left to my own devices. I’ve even had one person call me out and say I was never a believer to begin with. Where is the group of Christians that should call me, reach out, and pray for me? Do you see Christ in this?

 

[PRmerger]

Because the church is Christ on earth. Because the church represents Christ and is his bride. Because the church is supposed to fulfill Christ’s mission that he entrusted to it.

You know what sucks about falling away? That my friends in church haven’t exactly reached out to me and offered to encourage, pray, and intervene, and convince me that I am in error. Instead I’m just left to my own devices. I’ve even had one person call me out and say I was never a believer to begin with. Where is the group of Christians that should call me, reach out, and pray for me? Do you see Christ in this?

I am sorry that no one has called you and invited you back, telling you that you are missed…

but that is an indictment of the Church teaching the fullness of truth…how, again?

 

[CaliLobo]

I am sorry that no one has called you and invited you back, telling you that you are missed…

but that is an indictment of the Church teaching the fullness of truth…how, again?

Because I don’t feel the love from the church. Don’t people in church believe in God, who is love? Does a church that has the fullness of the truth just not care and allow one to slip away?

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that the spiritual leaders of the Catholic Church cannot follow the Church’s teachings regarding sex, means to me that perhaps we need to rethink whether what we thought were sexual sins, really are sexual sins.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-cont...nt-be-serious.gif.pagespeed.ce.dXZdK1-Bak.gif

Think about what you are saying, specifically regarding pedophile priests that you keep referring to. You are arguing that we ought to make molestation of children permissible.

If it weren’t for man-made religion, sex outside of marriage wouldn’t be wrong.

And the same for pedophilia, then? Is that what you are arguing?

By the way, you haven’t answered my question about why Poles, Irish, and Latin Americans are leaving the Catholic Church in droves. Why are they?

It is an irrelevant point, as far as truth goes.

If there were a multitude of folks who decided to proclaim that 2 + 2 = 5, mathematicians certainly would be foolish to decide, “I guess we have to re-think the way we do math now. 2 + 2 = 5 from now on! We need to re-think the way we do things and get with modernity!”

Could we then agree with just one point? That, despite what the Vatican has written in its encyclicals, because the Vatican has committed so many historical abuses and errors, and because the teachings of Christ have been altered so many times over history, it is still possible for a person to be a faithful Christian and support same-sex marriage rights politically?

That would make as much sense as saying, "Because my geometry teacher once got a DWI I think it’s possible to now say that this is a square: "

http://blog.qbrushes.net/tutorials/float/1.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

Because I don’t feel the love from the church. Don’t people in church believe in God, who is love? Does a church that has the fullness of the truth just not care and allow one to slip away?

Can you answer me this question, Cali. (And I want you to think about this with some degree of astuteness)

Who is it that told you that God is love?

 

[CaliLobo]

Can you answer me this question, Cali. (And I want you to think about this with some degree of astuteness)

Who is it that told you that God is love?

Exactly. The church. (Or the Bible, which is promulgated by the church.) But now I realize that the church isn’t loving, and that the church isn’t what I thought it was.