How much longer before the Church recognizes a homosexual Saint?

[Fauken]

Ok, let’s get to the real issue here:

Numerous clergy in the Church, who are homosexuals themselves, are secretly promoting an agenda of accepting homosexuality and the sexual revolution in general. They want us to become like the Anglicans, who are eager to embrace every modern sexual fad in our culture (fornication, contraception, easy divorce, trans-gendered, homosexuality, bi-sexual , tri-sexual, quad-sexual, whatever). Declaring a homosexual saint would simply be a part of that agenda. You all know this is true.

Oh yes, the progressives out there would be absolutely ecstatic if Pope Francis got on his balcony and said, "Today we declare as saints:

Francis the Homosexual
(roaring applause from the progressives, looks of horror from the traditionalists)
**Anthony the Bi-Sexual ** "
**Aquinas the Trans-gendered ** "
**Mary the Lesbian ** "
Alexander the man who practiced Beastiality "

You see, I don’t have a problem declaring someone a saint for overcoming lust, but to specifically identify the perversion of homosexuality, in this particular time, would not be appropriate. Pope Francis would NEVER do this. It would be used by progressive-Catholic clergy to further push their agenda of accepting these things. Even the saint himself would not want to be identified with the perversion, if he was actually a saint.

I suppose we should stop cannonizing Saints then, since all of their sins would give the liberals ammunition to make the Church more liberal.

Just like how when St. Mary Magdeline the Fornicator became a Saint. All of the prostitutes who were unrepentantly promiscuous huddled around excitedly saying, “Wow! Does this mean the Catholics will finally say that fornication is not a sin? Hoorah!”

Except that’s not what happened. But that’s how your logic would have it.

St. Augustine isn’t known as “St. Augustine the Hedonist”, or “St. Peter the Denier”, “St. Mary Magdeline the Fornicator”, “St. Paul the Persecutor”, etc. This is a person who struggled like anyone else would with their cross, only their cross happened to be same-sex attraction. Even if such a person was only meant to be for those who struggled with sexual sins, what would prevent that liberal faction from mentioning it? “Oh, the Church may say they interceede for struggles with purity, but we all know exactly what that means!”

It wouldn’t help. It’d be masking the issue. And the Saint denying the sin as something they’re struggling with is also equally as deceitful, and harmful to their soul.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I think it’s crystal clear that people on this thread with ssa are looking for support, solace and inspiration from a saint who has, obviously, been tempted to engage in homosexuality but rather chose to live a chaste life.

Yes, but the opposite is also true. There are many Catholics on Catholic Answers who are trying to promote an agenda of legitimizing this awful sexual perversion; a perversion that our secular society is demanding we embrace. Many Christians in our society will gladly martyr themselves to defend a person’s right to practice sodomy, but do not care at all when Jesus is mocked in the media.

From the catechism: ‘‘The number of men and women who have deep-seated omosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’’

Yes, but this is also true of rapists, pedophiles, murderers and every other sinner. We must treat all these sinners with compassion, respect and sensitivity. It’s not like homosexuals get some “special exemption”. At the same time, we have to hate the sin. I have no problem with a homosexual who is repentant, but even Jesus condemned those who denied their sin (tried to say it was ok).

What I am concerned about is the promotion of this sin by various people both in and outside of the Church. Anyone who tries to PROMOTE an unnatural sin like homosexuality is in more danger than someone who self-righteously condemns all homosexuals to hell:

“*If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea…

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched’.Everyone will be salted with fire." *

The secular people in our society are aggressively promoting this sin in our schools. There are many Catholic clergy who are secretly doing the same thing. They actually believe they are doing something virtuous by defending this perversion. I get the same feeling from many of the people who posted in this thread. But this is false compassion. What they are actually doing is causing more and more people to stumble into hell.

I don’t think your post is going in that direction.

Trust me, the direction you seem to be promoting is far more dangerous.

 

[Praedicare]

To the OP’s question: I’m working as fast as I can!

In all seriousness: I don’t think we need a specifically “homosexual saint”. As far as God is concerned, all of us are homosexuals, heterosexuals, holy, unholy, just, unjust, saved, and even damned. Why? Because all those who have been baptized into Christ are one with Christ, who died and rose again for gays and straights, who is holy but was counted unholy, was just but was treated unjustly, and who saved us all by being damned to crucifixion.

Speaking as a gay man, I don’t really want or need a gay saint. All are one in Christ: Man and Woman, Slave and Free, Jew and Greek, Gay and Straight. I am as inspired by St. Joseph as I am by St. Jean Vianney as I am by St. Joan of Arc. They might as well have been gay, for I ask their intercessions as much as if they were like me, for I am indeed like them. It doesn’t matter. What matters is the Resurrection of Christ.

To ask for this sort of thing is to desire niches and clubs among the saints based on very ephemeral, changing things. I sympathize, though. I really do.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I suppose we should stop cannonizing Saints then, since all of their sins would give the liberals ammunition to make the Church more liberal.

Just like how when St. Mary Magdeline the Fornicator became a Saint. All of the prostitutes who were unrepentantly promiscuous huddled around excitedly saying, “Wow! Does this mean the Catholics will finally say that fornication is not a sin? Hoorah!”

A dumb analogy. Prostitution has always been recognized as something that is very evil; something that hurts women. This is simply not the same with homosexuality. Too many people - both in and outside the Church - are actively promoting this sin, which is why I do not want any saint to be explicitly identified with it at this time. They can say “he overcame lust”, but we don’t need to directly associate him with the particular sin of sodomy. It only further promotes the idea that homosexuals are a “race of people” or a “persecuted minority group”.They’re not.

You know, if the Pope actually called some saint a homosexual, there would be a huge uproar in the Church. If he actually went out and said, “Cyril the Homosexual” (literally), so many Catholics everywhere would be pissed off - not just me. So stop trying to suggest that my position is WAY OUT THERE, because it’s not. I am positive Cardinal Sarah and many others would be on my side of this debate.

 

[Elena321]

A dumb analogy. Prostitution has always been recognized as something that is very evil; something that hurts women. This is simply not the same with homosexuality. Too many people - both in and outside the Church - are actively promoting this sin, which is why I do not want any saint to be explicitly identified with it at this time. They can say “he overcame lust”, but we don’t need to directly associate him with the particular sin of sodomy. It only further promotes the idea that homosexuals are a “race of people” or a “persecuted minority group”.QUOTE]

I don’t think it’s necessarily a dumb analogy.
Whilst probably not many Catholics,you may be surprised that there’s unfortunately a lot of people in some countries that see Prostitution as completely ok-even “empowering” to women.
I think this is particularly the case for countries such as Germany and Amsterdam.

 

[Rosebud77]

Ok, let’s get to the real issue here:

Numerous clergy in the Church, who are homosexuals themselves, are secretly promoting an agenda of accepting homosexuality and the sexual revolution in general. They want us to become like the Anglicans, who are eager to embrace every modern sexual fad in our culture (fornication, contraception, easy divorce, trans-gendered, homosexuality, bi-sexual , tri-sexual, quad-sexual, whatever). Declaring a homosexual saint would simply be a part of that agenda. You all know this is true.

Oh yes, the progressives out there would be absolutely ecstatic if Pope Francis got on his balcony and said, "Today we declare as saints:

Francis the Homosexual
(roaring applause from the progressives, looks of horror from the traditionalists)
**Anthony the Bi-Sexual ** "
**Aquinas the Trans-gendered ** "
**Mary the Lesbian ** "
Alexander the man who practiced Beastiality "

You see, I don’t have a problem declaring someone a saint for overcoming lust, but to specifically identify the perversion of homosexuality, in this particular time, would not be appropriate. Pope Francis would NEVER do this. It would be used by progressive-Catholic clergy to further push their agenda of accepting these things. Even the saint himself would not want to be identified with the perversion, if he was actually a saint.

Sheesh. I just came back to bed after too much housework and SAW YOUR BOLDED LIST… Nearly gave me a heart attackl

 

[Rosebud77]

Ok, let’s get to the real issue here:

**Numerous clergy in the Church, who are homosexuals themselves, are secretly promoting an agenda of accepting homosexuality and the sexual revolution in general. They want us to become like the Anglicans, who are eager to embrace every modern sexual fad in our culture (fornication, contraception, easy divorce, trans-gendered, homosexuality, bi-sexual , tri-sexual, quad-sexual, whatever). Declaring a homosexual saint would simply be a part of that agenda. You all know this is true.
**
Oh yes, the progressives out there would be absolutely ecstatic if Pope Francis got on his balcony and said, "Today we declare as saints:

Francis the Homosexual
(roaring applause from the progressives, looks of horror from the traditionalists)
**Anthony the Bi-Sexual ** "
**Aquinas the Trans-gendered ** "
**Mary the Lesbian ** "
Alexander the man who practiced Beastiality "

You see, I don’t have a problem declaring someone a saint for overcoming lust, but to specifically identify the perversion of homosexuality, in this particular time, would not be appropriate. Pope Francis would NEVER do this. It would be used by progressive-Catholic clergy to further push their agenda of accepting these things. Even the saint himself would not want to be identified with the perversion, if he was actually a saint.

With respect; see my bold. I do not think that that is what the Anglicans are about . Odd I was thinking about that , putting vague thoughts into words, as I was in my garden just now.

This is the church, Anglica, I was raised in and spent much of my life in. And it was not like this in my days, ie 40-70 years ago.

Seems they have changed the focus from worshipping and respecting God to almost worshipping and respecting humanity, It was always a very social church and that was very very good in so many ways.l

Now it is about accepting people of all kinds and doing that in such a way that there need be no progress or teaching

So there are no longer any absolutes.

Learned that such a lot here from one posters posts especially.

It is not total by any means I know some very very careful Angicans who do not accept the way gays are … well more than accepted ,fostered and yes encouraged in some circles.

"Acceptance’is a very difficult concept especially when the gay lobby refuse anything but fill on approval for their life style

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Ok, let’s get to the real issue here:

Numerous clergy in the Church, who are homosexuals themselves, are secretly promoting an agenda of accepting homosexuality and the sexual revolution in general. They want us to become like the Anglicans, who are eager to embrace every modern sexual fad in our culture (fornication, contraception, easy divorce, trans-gendered, homosexuality, bi-sexual , tri-sexual, quad-sexual, whatever). Declaring a homosexual saint would simply be a part of that agenda. You all know this is true.

Oh yes, the progressives out there would be absolutely ecstatic if Pope Francis got on his balcony and said, "Today we declare as saints:

Francis the Homosexual
(roaring applause from the progressives, looks of horror from the traditionalists)
**Anthony the Bi-Sexual ** "
**Aquinas the Trans-gendered ** "
**Mary the Lesbian ** "
Alexander the man who practiced Beastiality "

You see, I don’t have a problem declaring someone a saint for overcoming lust, but to specifically identify the perversion of homosexuality, in this particular time, would not be appropriate. Pope Francis would NEVER do this. It would be used by progressive-Catholic clergy to further push their agenda of accepting these things. Even the saint himself would not want to be identified with the perversion, if he was actually a saint.

Does this gay agenda also work with Zionists and Freemasons or is it just a gay plot to take over the Church?

I think Henri Nouwen would be a good role model

 

[fladreamer]

Trust me, the direction you seem to be promoting is far more dangerous.

Perfectly aligned with the Catechism. Yours? Not so much.