Homosexual politics?

[fix]

Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[Stephen168]

I find this whole debate rather contrary to catholic doctrine, especially the advise given by the apologists, furthermore i find the way in which you approach these people more than just harsh, but contrary to the teachings of the saints…
Shunning people is something that reminds me of the movie “Jesus camp”, and its behavior i believe has no place in any healthy, moral Christian,s thoughts, words or acts.
Who are you to say that his/her sins are greater than yours?

How is this debate contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

Do you have some examples of Catholic apologists recommending shunning or another harsh treatment?

Do you have an example of Catholic apologists claiming his/her sins are greater than theirs?
It seems to me it is usually supporters of homosexual politics which claim their actions are not sin; to which Catholic apologists disagree.

 

[Incomplete]

All I can say is that over the course of the last 2000 plus years, there have been changes in what the Church held as “truths” about culture and human relationships. Again, study the history yourself if you don’t believe that, I’ve already done my homework. Learning about those changes in college and graduate school didn’t drive me to become an atheist, but it did make me more realistic about how I view the man made institution that is the Church.

I can stand up in Church every week and say the Creed without hesitation while also knowing that the Church is now and has always been run by human beings who can get the message wrong now and then.

I have studied as well. I don’t see doctrinal changes. And to say that homosexual relationships are not sinful would be a doctrinal change.

 

[RobbyS]

I would never talk about homosexual politics with someone who isn’t a devout Catholic; they just wouldn’t understand. Yes, by modern morals anything less than absolute acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, will appear like you’re a prejudice bigot. I have a coworker who is a lesbian with a lesbian spouse and two beautiful sons that were conceived artificially. I can’t tell her that her family is wicked.

. It is, after all, a parody of a traditional family. Otherwise, they would not maintain the facade. Their argument is that no harm is done if she and her partner maintain the forms of convention. But of course, it does not “save” those forms, because it serves no natural purpose. George Sand may have worn mean’s clothes and smoked, but she was still what she was, an unconventional person.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

How is this debate contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

Do you have some examples of Catholic apologists recommending shunning or another harsh treatment?

Do you have an example of Catholic apologists claiming his/her sins are greater than theirs?
It seems to me it is usually supporters of homosexual politics which claim their actions are not sin; to which Catholic apologists disagree.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Quote:
“10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law”

And i do not understand why one would leave the church if the doctrine on sexuality where altered.
It would not invalidate the holy sacraments of our holy mother church, and even more importantly nor would it debase her apostolic foundation.
The Roman Catholic Church, unlike any other Christian denomination, has a direct link with Jesus Christ, our lord, starting with Peter all the way to Benedict XVI, and despite a few flawed chinks that chain has never been broken, because Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against her.

I am only saying what i would do if it where up to me, or rather, what my conscience would demand me to, and not my will.

Blessings to all of you.
PS:If you still think i am in error, you can contact my Bishop.
info@bisdomdenbosch.nl
Joeri, GGW Foolen.

 

[Stephen168]

PS:If you still think i am in error, you can contact my Bishop.

You didn’t answer my questions. It was not your Bishop who made these claims, it was you so it would have to be you that defends them.

I’ll try again: How is this debate contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

Do you have some examples of Catholic apologists recommending shunning or another harsh treatment?

Do you have an example of Catholic apologists claiming his/her sins are greater than theirs?

 

[Incomplete]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

And i do not understand why one would leave the church if the doctrine on sexuality where altered.
It would not invalidate the holy sacraments of our holy mother church, and even more importantly nor would it debase her apostolic foundation.
The Roman Catholic Church, unlike any other Christian denomination, has a direct link with Jesus Christ, our lord, starting with Peter all the way to Benedict XVI, and despite a few flawed chinks that chain has never been broken, because Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against her.

I am only saying what i would do if it where up to me, or rather, what my conscience would demand me to, and not my will.

Blessings to all of you.
PS:If you still think i am in error, you can contact my Bishop.
info@bisdomdenbosch.nl
Joeri, GGW Foolen.

I’m assuming that this part was addressed to me.

I am not Catholic just because of Apostolic succession. I am Catholic because I believe that if God does exist, He is a God of truth, and that He has provided a way for us to know that truth. It is clearly not through individual conscience; if it was, then all people who pray and sincerely try to follow Jesus would be in agreement. You and Pope Benedict, for example, would be in agreement on this issue because you both pray and sincerely seek God’s will.

If there is no place to find truth, then we can’t know truth. We can just have opinions about truth, not knowing which of those opinions are true and which aren’t. For all I know, all of my opinions are wrong.

So if God is a God of truth, and wants us to know truth, He has to provide a way. A church who teaches something to the level of doctrine, and later says, “oops, we were wrong”…how can I know that other doctrine won’t change? I understand development of doctrine, but not doctrinal change. To say from the early days of the Church that homosexual activity is to the level of grave sin, then to say, oops, we were wrong all that time…that’s pretty major. What else, then, are they wrong about?

The Church claims that God provides protection from error in things like this. That makes sense; without His protection in this, we don’t know what to believe. If the Church is wrong about matters of doctrine, it’s wrong about God’s protection…and what else is it wrong about?

I can’t believe in a God who wants us to know truth but will not provide it, and will only leave us guessing.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I can stand up in Church every week and say the Creed without hesitation while also knowing that the Church is now and has always been run by human beings who can get the message wrong now and then.

How do you explain the Holy Spirit being the Advocate? Does the Holy Spirit lead the Church to error?

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I’m assuming that this part was addressed to me.

I am not Catholic just because of Apostolic succession. I am Catholic because I believe that if God does exist, He is a God of truth, and that He has provided a way for us to know that truth. It is clearly not through individual conscience; if it was, then all people who pray and sincerely try to follow Jesus would be in agreement. You and Pope Benedict, for example, would be in agreement on this issue because you both pray and sincerely seek God’s will.

If there is no place to find truth, then we can’t know truth. We can just have opinions about truth, not knowing which of those opinions are true and which aren’t. For all I know, all of my opinions are wrong.

So if God is a God of truth, and wants us to know truth, He has to provide a way. A church who teaches something to the level of doctrine, and later says, “oops, we were wrong”…how can I know that other doctrine won’t change? I understand development of doctrine, but not doctrinal change. To say from the early days of the Church that homosexual activity is to the level of grave sin, then to say, oops, we were wrong all that time…that’s pretty major. What else, then, are they wrong about?

The Church claims that God provides protection from error in things like this. That makes sense; without His protection in this, we don’t know what to believe. If the Church is wrong about matters of doctrine, it’s wrong about God’s protection…and what else is it wrong about?

I can’t believe in a God who wants us to know truth but will not provide it, and will only leave us guessing.

Its not like that at all, humans are flawed, all humans, and recognizing our mistakes is not humiliating, quite the opposite in fact, it allows us to humbly seek the truth.
You are saying faith is based on knowing, and that is a contradiction, faith is based on believing.
And like i said:
PS:If you still think i am in error due to what i said because of my conscience (sorry for not being more clear on that), you can contact my Bishop.
info@bisdomdenbosch.nl

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

You didn’t answer my questions. It was not your Bishop who made these claims, it was you so it would have to be you that defends them.

I’ll try again: How is this debate contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

Do you have some examples of Catholic apologists recommending shunning or another harsh treatment?

Do you have an example of Catholic apologists claiming his/her sins are greater than theirs?

You misunderstood me, this debate is not contrary to Catholic Doctrine, the advise from one of the apologists is:
If i was not clear on that, well…WHOOPS!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=610928

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

Quote:
“10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law”

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

How do you explain the Holy Spirit being the Advocate? Does the Holy Spirit lead the Church to error?

No of course not, its our human interpretation that can, i am just saying it is, i am only saying what my conscience demands me to say.

 

[fix]

You misunderstood me, this debate is not contrary to Catholic Doctrine, the advise from one of the apologists is:
If i was not clear on that, well…WHOOPS!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=610928

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

Quote:
“10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law”

The advice given and your quote do not oppose each other. They are in harmony.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

The advice given and your quote do not oppose each other. They are in harmony.

I do not see how, i just don’t.
Its saying that that person is to sinful to befriend, so in essence you are saying you believe yourself better than him/her, even if its isn,t consciously.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I am starting to think you are all really afraid of doubt.
Not that i blame you.

 

[fix]

I do not see how, i just don’t.
Its saying that that person is to sinful to befriend, so in essence you are saying you believe yourself better than him/her, even if its isn,t consciously.

Where does the Church teach one must make friends in every circumstance or it is a sin?

It is a matter of prudence.

People’s beliefs and actions are very important in determining how one forms friendships.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Where does the Church teach one must make friends in every circumstance or it is a sin?

You don’t have to, where did i say that, all i am saying is that i disagree with the apologist, i would not follow the advise, that is all.

 

[RJ_Empson]

The Lord will judge all in the end. I’d rather politics wasn’t so blind as to change sacred laws in order to win popularity contests.

(reminds me a little of King David sending Uriah in to battle with the certainty that he would die and that David could Marry Bathsheba) - King David (internesting coincidence in name here too??!) was harshly punished for trying to move the goal posts of morality.

 

[fix]

You don’t have to, where did i say that, all i am saying is that i disagree with the apologist, i would not follow the advise, that is all.

No, you are claiming the advice is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

The Lord will judge all in the end. I’d rather politics wasn’t so blind as to change sacred laws in order to win popularity contests.

(reminds me a little of King David sending Uriah in to battle with the certainty that he would die and that David could Marry Bathsheba) - King David (internesting coincidence in name here too??!) was harshly punished for trying to move the goal posts of morality.

I am not saying i can not be done, i am only saying that i cant do it.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No, you are claiming the advice is contrary to Church teaching.

The way i see it, yes, but that is no absolute, if i was unclear on that i apologize.