Gay 'Bishop' Gene Robinson attacks Catholic stance of homosexuality

[Christus_Rex]

Gay Bishop Attacks Catholic Stand

Sad, isn’t it I think he should read his Bible more…

And if there are Catholics joining the Anglican Church…

1. They weren’t very good Catholics anyway
2. We’re better off without them

Michael

 

[bones_IV]

Bishop Gene Robinson ought to speak for himself. Bishop who advocates homosexual unions. Sounds like Gene Robinson is indirectly attacking Pope Benedict.

 

[Tristan_daCunha]

He had been asked not wear his full vestments or take part in the religious service before addressing the audience from a lectern rather than the pulpit.

hmmmm… it sounds as if the Anglican Church isn’t entirely accepting of him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How does that differ from (say) Dominus Jesus ?​

Only in being about sexuality rather ecclesiology, and in being from an Anglican bishop rather than a Roman Catholic; yet, if Catholics can criticise Anglican things for their deficiencies, real or alleged - then Anglicans can return the compliment. Otherwise, Catholics are implying that they can say what they think about others, & that those others must not be allowed to reply. That’s not how disunited Christians come together, by letting one lot, and only one, speak their piece. That would reduce dialogue to a monologue: both have to speak - then they may come a bit closer to mutual understanding, even if they cannot be fully agreed. And when there are replies - there are sometimes disagreements.

Bishop Robinson is not criticising, let alone attacking, anyone - the only person being criticised on this thread is Bishop Robinson. It’s much easier to criticise people than to examine what they say; than to say what if anything is wrong with it, and in what respect.

What has Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality to do with his criticism of the Catholic stance on homosexuality ? If it’s that important to how a man thinks, why do we never read of “Celibate Pope Benedict XVI” or “Heterosexual Pope Benedict XVI” ? But we don’t. Does his lack of sexual activity play absolutely no part whatever in how he functions as a Christian theologian & a Christian bishop ? If it’s irrelevant to his theology and his pastoral practice - why should Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality be any more relevant to his ? ##

 

[bones_IV]

## How does that differ from (say) Dominus Jesus ?

Only in being about sexuality rather ecclesiology, and in being from an Anglican bishop rather than a Roman Catholic; yet, if Catholics can criticise Anglican things for their deficiencies, real or alleged - then Anglicans can return the compliment.##

Really? Is that so. Not in my experience.

## Otherwise, Catholics are implying that they can say what they think about others, & that those others must not be allowed to reply. That’s not how disunited Christians come together, by letting one lot, and only one, speak their piece. That would reduce dialogue to a monologue: both have to speak - then they may come a bit closer to mutual understanding, even if they cannot be fully agreed. And when there are replies - there are sometimes disagreements.##

Mixing apples with oranges. So you say that telling the truth about Gene Robinson is attempting to promote silencing someone? Compromising beliefs gottle of greer is not christian unity. Which you seem to be implying. There is only one Church and that’s the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. The purpose of dialogue is to draw people to the fullness of the faith, not allow them to live in their delusion.

## Bishop Robinson is not criticising, let alone attacking, anyone - the only person being criticised on this thread is Bishop Robinson. It’s much easier to criticise people than to examine what they say; than to say what if anything is wrong with it, and in what respect. What has Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality to do with his criticism of the Catholic stance on homosexuality ? If it’s that important to how a man thinks, why do we never read of “Celibate Pope Benedict XVI” or “Heterosexual Pope Benedict XVI” ? But we don’t. Does his lack of sexual activity play absolutely no part whatever in how he functions as a Christian theologian & a Christian bishop ? If it’s irrelevant to his theology and his pastoral practice - why should Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality be any more relevant to his ? ##

Oh, I see, so criticizing the Vatican is not criticism? How blind can you be? So living in a homosexual lifestyle is ok and yet you say there is no connection between his homosexual lifestyle and pastoral service? Rolling over, laughing.
He’s allowed to do this, but yet when we point out his inconsistencies you automatically assume we’re judging others? To ask how his sexual activity plays a part in how he functions as a Christian theologian and a Christian bishop has got to be one of the stupidest arguements I’ve ever heard. Bishop Robinson criticized the Vatican with a pro-homosexuality agenda. To say that his sexual activity plays no part in how he functions as a Christian bishop is irrelevant to his theology and pastoral service is heretical. Do you not realize that our actions reflect who we are?

 

[Evangel]

Gottle of Geer:

Bishop Robinson is not criticising, let alone attacking, anyone

Perhaps you didn’t read the article. From the article:

The Bishop of New Hampshire said the Vatican’s ban on ordaining gay men was “vile”

and

“I find it so vile that they think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries.”

Robinson then goes on to actually name Benedict. Sounds like criticism, not of policy, but of those who are fostering the policy – namely “the Vatican” and “they” who are implementing it.

 

[cathgal]

Man is a hypocrit.

He continued: "I find it so vile that they think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. "

Maybe not, but we do what we can and what we see, and what we see are priests molesting boys. Call it pedophile or whatever. It’s a same sex attraction. Plain and simple…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Gene Robinson is one of those many figures on the religious scene who can only get any attention by slinging dirt at those people and institutions that do have the significance they fancy for themselves. Matthew Fox, for example, let out a torrent of screed when Pope Benedict was elected. Otherwise, how would he get any notice at all?

Gene has much bigger problems that the Catholic Church. A majority of the members of the Anglican Communion do not recognize his episcopal office, and many have declared “impaired communion” with the US Episcopal Church over his election and installation.

And what better place than the UK to let loose on Rome? Even though more RC’s attend Mass on a Sunday there than C of E folks go to church, the place is still a long way from being Catholic-friendly.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Orionthehunter]

Gay Bishop Attacks Catholic Stand

Sad, isn’t it I think he should read his Bible more…

And if there are Catholics joining the Anglican Church…

1. They weren’t very good Catholics anyway
2. We’re better off without them

Michael

We are never better off when one of God’s children separates himself from His Church. We should weep every loss as God weeps. Our job isn’t to judge the merits of any soul (that is God’s exclusive right) but to do our best to bring all souls to Christ’s bosom.

 

[Colm_O_Higgins]

Gottle of Geer:

How does that differ from (say) Dominus Jesus ?​

Only in being about sexuality rather ecclesiology, and in being from an Anglican bishop rather than a Roman Catholic; yet, if Catholics can criticise Anglican things for their deficiencies, real or alleged - then Anglicans can return the compliment.

Hmmm. What about Anglicans criticizing Anglicans? Did you know the Anglican Communion has suspended the North American and British Churches for its recents misadventures in matters sexual? The Catholic Church, as an institution, has done very little in the way of vocalizing criticism to ‘Anglican deficienies - real or alleged’. It does not need to; the rest of the Anglican Church is, and rightfully so, providing its own criticism.
Gottle of Geer:

What has Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality to do with his criticism of the Catholic stance on homosexuality ?

I suppose this has already been answered, but I cannot resist. Robinson makes much of his sexual preference. His latest diatribe against authentic Christian teaching proves as much. Let’s look at this from a different perspective. If I’m a gun owner, does it influence the way I view the anti-gun movement? Of course it does. Only a robot would disagree.

 

[estesbob]

Gay Bishop Attacks Catholic Stand

Sad, isn’t it I think he should read his Bible more…

And if there are Catholics joining the Anglican Church…

1. They weren’t very good Catholics anyway
2. We’re better off without them

Michael

Beleive me there are not many Catholics joining the Episcopal Church. They bhave lost 40% of their members in the last 25 years-many of those they lost came to the Catholic church. They have a synod in 2006 and look for their Church to split in two.

I feel for any catholics who have joined the episcopal Chruch. They have rejected the One True church for a church that chages its doctrines at the whim of public opinion. I believe that puts their Souls in jeapordy. They can not claim “invincible ignorance”. thhey had the truth and rejected it. Sad, very sad. they are in much need of our prayers.

 

[Catholic29]

estesbob:

I feel for any catholics who have joined the episcopal Chruch. They have rejected the One True church for a church that chages its doctrines at the whim of public opinion. I believe that puts their Souls in jeapordy. They can not claim “invincible ignorance”. thhey had the truth and rejected it. Sad, very sad. they are in much need of our prayers.

That is if they were properly catechized or taught the faith to begin with, which sadly many Catholics haven’t been. But they are in need of our prayers all the same.

Though what realy irks me are those who still claim to be Catholic, yet reject many of the Church’s core teachings, and also say it should change certain doctrines to conform to their views.

And in this case homosexuality: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=83881

In which case the Church would also have to rewrite the Bible, thus making it no longer Christian of any stripe in my view.

 

[bones_IV]

It is true that many catholics are not catechized but I find it hard to believe that we have many invincibly ignorant catholics running around, the opportunity to repent is always there.

 

[convert_2000]

## How does that differ from (say) Dominus Jesus ?

What has Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality to do with his criticism of the Catholic stance on homosexuality ? If it’s that important to how a man thinks, why do we never read of “Celibate Pope Benedict XVI” or “Heterosexual Pope Benedict XVI” ? But we don’t. Does his lack of sexual activity play absolutely no part whatever in how he functions as a Christian theologian & a Christian bishop ? If it’s irrelevant to his theology and his pastoral practice - why should Bishop Robinson’s homosexuality be any more relevant to his ? ##

Why do we know the Bishop is homosexual? Why is it that homosexuals choose to identify themselves as homosexuals? Heterosexuals don’t find it necessary to carry a sign saying “I’m heterosexual.”

 

[convert_2000]

November 8, 2005

GAY EPISCOPAL BISHOP SLAMS CATHOLICISM

Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, and the first openly gay Anglican bishop, attacked the Catholic Church over the weekend while in London. “I find it so vile that they [the Catholic Church] think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. It is an act of violence that needs to be confronted.” He added: “Pope Ratzinger [sic] may be the best thing that ever happened to the Episcopal Church. We are seeing so many Roman Catholics joining the church.”

Responding today is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“Gene Robinson is a walking embarrassment to Episcopalians everywhere, and is profoundly ignorant of what has been happening to his own church. Had he read David Shiflett’s splendid book, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity, he might have been able to connect the dots: it is because of people like him—a practicing homosexual—that his church is imploding. And prior to Shiflett’s work we had the ground-breaking volume by professor Thomas C. Reeves, The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore. His book is also about what happens when the likes of Robinson assume power.

**“Here’s to you, Mr. Robinson. Your proselytizing efforts are deeply appreciated by Roman Catholics.” **

catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter%204/051108_robinson.htm

 

[Christus_Rex]

Orionthehunter:

We are never better off when one of God’s children separates himself from His Church. We should weep every loss as God weeps. Our job isn’t to judge the merits of any soul (that is God’s exclusive right) but to do our best to bring all souls to Christ’s bosom.

They have lost the truth, and become a Protestant, I mourn that. However, the Church is better off with faithful Catholics who follow her, not CINOs who give a false impression of the Church.

Michael

 

[Orionthehunter]

Christus Rex:

They have lost the truth, and become a Protestant, I mourn that. However, the Church is better off with faithful Catholics who follow her, not CINOs who give a false impression of the Church.

Michael

I respectfully disagree. These CINO’s as you like to call them are victimized by poor catechesis (for which we, as collective members of the Body of Christ, need to take responsibility to some degree) and succumbing to a culture that opposes the Church. Their failings and the scandal related to it just make our job harder. However, as Catholics, we are called to be of this world and labor tirelessly to spread the Good News. Those who are separated by choice (dissidents), heritage (Protestants or other religions), or poor catechesis (CINO’s as you call them but I don’t like labels as it has an element of being judgmental of their hearts) are OPPORTUNITIES for us in full communion w/ the Church. To those to whom much is given (faithful Catholics), much is expected. Now lets get to work and do what we can to bring them home to Christ’s bosom and His Bride the Church.

 

[fix]

bones_IV:

It is true that many catholics are not catechized but I find it hard to believe that we have many invincibly ignorant catholics running around, the opportunity to repent is always there.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[cathgal]

Orionthehunter:

I respectfully disagree. These CINO’s as you like to call them are victimized by poor catechesis (for which we, as collective members of the Body of Christ, need to take responsibility to some degree) and succumbing to a culture that opposes the Church. Their failings and the scandal related to it just make our job harder. However, as Catholics, we are called to be of this world and labor tirelessly to spread the Good News. Those who are separated by choice (dissidents), heritage (Protestants or other religions), or poor catechesis (CINO’s as you call them but I don’t like labels as it has an element of being judgmental of their hearts) are OPPORTUNITIES for us in full communion w/ the Church. To those to whom much is given (faithful Catholics), much is expected. Now lets get to work and do what we can to bring them home to Christ’s bosom and His Bride the Church.

And there are wolves among the flock, those who knows the teaching of Church but still choose to defy it, we REALLY can do without. They just make our job more tiring by corrupting other members of the flock. Better that they stay far far away from the Church. Like just leave, disappear. But they don’t.

 

[Orionthehunter]

cathgal:

And there are wolves among the flock, those who knows the teaching of Church but still choose to defy it, we REALLY can do without. They just make our job more tiring by corrupting other members of the flock. Better that they stay far far away from the Church. Like just leave, disappear. But they don’t.

I guess you don’t take Christ’s exhortation to the Apostles to go forth, spread the Good News, and make men His disciples. We are called to evangelize everyone. If those of us blessed with the faith do our jobs and work tirelessly for the Lord, the message and confusion caused by these people will be drowned out and some of them will come home.

Anyone who advocates otherwise, is also a wolf among the flock, especially egregious as they openly advocate their elimination.