Good news from the Synod of Bishops! 12 things to know and share [Akin] (Merged Threads)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmar198
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guiltyofdoubt said:
All I know is Gays around the internet have seen the Mainstream reporting on this and they are going nuts, claiming “Victory over the Catholic Church” and it’s so called “backwards” doctrine.

It’s pretty disgusting, honestly.

It’s one thing to say Gays are sinners, but should still be loved as fellow human beings, but it’s entirely another to suggest that the Church will all of a sudden be accepting of Gay Marriage, Gay sexual relations, etc.

IF they do, i will be long gone from the Church**. The entire reason I joined is that it’s doctrine is supposed to be the Truth, and the Truth doesn’t change. **You either subscribe to and believe in that Truth, or you don’t and therefore aren’t Catholic, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s rather amusing that the LGBT community thinks they know better than an institution that’s been in existence longer than all their ages combined.

bold: I can’t remember her name, but she’s an English woman, who was part of the Church of England, and left and joined the RCC due to it not succumbing to social trends and modernism. She’s one of the leaders of the pro-life movement in the U.K.
 
Neofight said:
I hope you re-think your comments, because it sounds as if the Church leadership ever makes a decision you don’t agree with you’ll leave.
Click to expand...
So you’d follow the Church if it allows female priests, allows same-sex marriage, allows contraception etc. etc? It seems you missed the entire context of what the poster is trying to frame his disagreement on.

I don’t see anything remotely wrong about the poster’s comments. If the Church changes its mind on the same-sex relationship issue I think it would be a very very very big deal – for those who do not believe in advocating such a situation and those who want the Church to change and “join the 21st century.”
 
Hans_W said:
I suppose you know the “truth”. Well, that’s great.
Keep in mind that you are not the only one who thinks they got the “truth”!
Click to expand...
Another poster who seems to not fully comprehend what was actually said.
 
Why does the Catholic Church consider it appropriate or necessary to intrude upon the private, personal, consensual relationships between adults? Why is it such a major issue when there are so many far more serious matters in our world.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please remain on topic and discuss what the Synod has actually said and not your thinking, nor each other.

Posts have been removed.

Do not editorialize in your posts.

Object here is to discuss the synod document so that all can properly understand it and nothing more.
 
Ditto on the whole “valuing” thing as said by other posters here. It comes across as a “embrace homosexuality” which opens the doors to “being a doormat and punching bag for the social activists.”

I know engaging in homosexuality acts are disgusting, at least I don’t get the “Awww, aren’t they such a cute couple?”, so I’m not sure I’m suppose to “value” it unless that word is meant to mean “to treat with dignity”, then yea. One of my family members is a homosexual. I value him as a person, but I don’t “value” his sexual orientation.
alwaysthinkin said:
Exactly. I have read all kinds of justifications today ranging from “well, Jesus admired the religiousness of the Greeks den though they were pagans” to “well the translation from Italian may be a little off here…”

Sheer nonsense.
Click to expand...
Or my favorite “Wasn’t Jesus all about love and acceptance?” from someone who doesn’t understand the reasons behind the RCC’s stand on homosexuality and other deviant sexual acts. People who resort what you quoted and what I stated are desperate – they are grasping at whatever straws they can find. So, Greek were pagans … Hey, that’s proof they had it right! For people who say the don’t care & need religion, secularists are mightily obsessed in gaining its, Christianity’s, approval on their pet social issues – homosexuality and abortion and anything remotely “backwards” in terms of sex.
 
Midwest88 said:
Ditto on the whole “valuing” thing as said by other posters here. It comes across as a “embrace homosexuality” which opens the doors to “being a doormat and punching bag for the social activists.”

I know engaging in homosexuality acts are disgusting, at least I don’t get the “Awww, aren’t they such a cute couple?”, so I’m not sure I’m suppose to “value” it unless that word is meant to mean “to treat with dignity”, then yea. One of my family members is a homosexual. I value him as a person, but I don’t “value” his sexual orientation.

Or my favorite “Wasn’t Jesus all about love and acceptance?” from someone who doesn’t understand the reasons behind the RCC’s stand on homosexuality and other deviant sexual acts. People who resort what you quoted and what I stated are desperate – they are grasping at whatever straws they can find. So, Greek were pagans … Hey, that’s proof they had it right! For people who say the don’t care & need religion, secularists are mightily obsessed in gaining its, Christianity’s, approval on their pet social issues – homosexuality and abortion and anything remotely “backwards” in terms of sex.
Click to expand...
That certainly is a good point about the folks that abhor Catholicism (and sometimes even us Catholics) being intent on changing it/us to suit their needs. I never did understand that.

Groucho Marx comes to mind: “I would never wanna be in any club that would agree to take me as a member!”
 
Weejee said:
Nope. Because if you value their orientation, you have to value it enough to let them get married. :whistle: Ya can’t have one without the otherrrrrr…
Click to expand...
While the Church would prefer that same-sex “marriage” was not legal, she isn’t doing anything to “not let” same-sex couples get married. What do you suggest? Blockage the JPs offices? But no amount of “valuing” is going to result in the Church’s recognition of same-sex “marriage” in or out of the Church. You most certainly can have one of those without the other.
 
Corki said:
While the Church would prefer that same-sex “marriage” was not legal, she isn’t doing anything to “not let” same-sex couples get married. What do you suggest? Blockage the JPs offices? But no amount of “valuing” is going to result in the Church’s recognition of same-sex “marriage” in or out of the Church. You most certainly can have one of those without the other.
Click to expand...
I think the poster means, why value the orientation if you’re not going to condone (since like you said, the Church can’t legally block) the marriage that is the “natural” result of such orientations. It doesn’t make sense.
 
I just want one thing cleared up:
I know this isn’t the final output of the synod since it isn’t finished yet and from what I’ve read at NCRegister there would be revisions when this synod is over. But does the synod have a schedule of issues to discuss about or does it repeat issues and re-clarify them according to Church teaching to make them more sound?

I’m confused because I feel both secular media and concerned groups are overreacting like headless chickens.
 
In specific, on-topic, response to what the the Op says.
I dont think the New Synod Document is an earthquake.

…I think it is causing an earthquake.

And all because nobody in the mainstream, liberal media and the anti-church blogosphere is paying any attention whatsoever to those tiny little things at the end of a rhetorical sentence
which we call “question marks”.

Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on family and matrimony"?
 
alwaysthinkin said:
I think the poster means, why value the orientation if you’re not going to condone (since like you said, the Church can’t legally block) the marriage that is the “natural” result of such orientations. It doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Sure it makes sense. If you don’t value the orientation,then condemn it. You can still value the person without valuingtheir orientation.
 
JackVk said:
I said this on another thread:

Their same-sex attraction is not, in and of itself, sinful, only disordered. But someone with same-sex attraction can use that cross as a witness to living a chaste life in Christ. …
Click to expand...
Hello,

I understand the idea of “valuing” a cross I have to carry but I never thought it appropriate for me to “value” the cross that someone else has to carry.

I think this sentence from the “relatio” is not helpful. I hope nothing like it makes it into a final document.

Dan
 
CatholicWhovian said:
schedule of issues to discuss about or does it repeat issues and re-clarify them according to Church teaching to make them more sound?
Click to expand...
Are you asking if it repeats the issues discussed at this particular synod, or if it is repeating issues raised at previous synods?

IWO, are you asking if there will be clarifications made to the “earthquake” document before the synod adjourns?
 
This document is just a kind of working draft, not something approved by the Synod or promulgated by the Pope. In fact, from what I’ve read in some Italian news sources, the controversial passage was added by one bishop without discussion by the synod, and many other bishops are strenuously opposing it.

Definitely pray for the synod and Pope, but wait to panic until something authoritative happens.
 
Originally Posted by guiltyofdoubt

IF they do, i will be long gone from the Church. The entire reason I joined is that it’s doctrine is supposed to be the Truth, and the Truth doesn’t change. You either subscribe to and believe in that Truth, or you don’t and therefore aren’t Catholic, in my opinion.
Neofight said:
I hope you re-think your comments, because it sounds as if the Church leadership ever makes a decision you don’t agree with you’ll leave.

We are called to obey, not pick and chose what we like or don’t like.

There are three courses of action; lead, follow, or get out of the way…if it is unlikely you will become a bishop or cardinal, that leaves you two choices…just think through it before you do something you might regret.
Click to expand...
*To some degree this post has a valid point. There are ways to accept people, make them feel welcome and be good christians without changing our views on marriage. What if one day it does come to that. That Gay marriage is viewed as valid in the church. You are right we are called to obey but we are also called to the truth and that is not bibicaly correct. So following that and teaching our children that would be against everying the church has taught for many years. If push came to shove I have a feeling she wouldn’t be the only one in line for a new religious calling…there are just certain things people won’t and shouldn’t have to bend on, especially bibically speaking.
 
MarisaJean said:
Originally Posted by guiltyofdoubt

If push came to shove I have a feeling she wouldn’t be the only one in line for a new religious calling…there are just certain things people won’t and shouldn’t have to bend on, especially bibically speaking.
Click to expand...
With no malice, or lack of charity intended, I fear you are correct about those leaving who feel they “won’t and shouldn’t have to bend on, especially biblically speaking”. History is full of stories of those who did just that. Its called a belief in Sola Scriptura, and those people are called Protestants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top