C
CaliLobo
Guest
Yes, since Senegal is at the forefront of gay rights, much less women’s rights (i.e. their concept of gender).
Now that gay marriage is a decided issue in the USA, can the Catholic Church go back to preaching the Gospel now?
- Status
M
Michael57
Guest
Since you hold the blogs of non-Catholics (with a following of 42 people!) in such high esteem, I’d like to direct your attention to this one from “scripture Catholic” regarding homosexuality from the perspective of Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.
scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html
And this from our very own CAF:
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Hope you find it as enlightening as I did. BTW - all actions that are intrinsically evil are abomination before the Lord. He has told us that time and again.
I was in grave error due to mortal sin in my life (though not this particular sin),I was a libertine trapped in a lifestyle of licentiousness, immorality, and drunkenness, and only through the power of Jesus Christ, administered through His Church was I able to gain new life and regain my soul through His grace. He gave me the faith to believe on Him…
That is a fact. I need never return to that lifestyle, and my sins have been forgiven. Born anew in Christ Jesus. And now I cannot even imagine living without Him in my life through the Catholic Church.
M
markomalley
Guest
You have got to be kidding me.
Just. Wow.
It is impossible for two women to marry and it is impossible for two men to marry. I do not particularly care what gymnastics a legislator or a jurist uses, it is no more possible for two men or two women to marry than it is for a man to marry his big screen TV.
Just because a legislator determines that apple juice will henceforth be known as orange juice does not mean that it is the case.
Legislatures doing so and courts validating that has one result: the State sanction of sodomy. Unrepentant sodomites will end up going to hell. May God have mercy on the pastor of souls who ends up providing an ecclesiastic imprimatur to that State sanction. There is a special place in hell for those who lead others astray.
Leading somebody to hell isn’t love. It isn’t kindness. It isn’t goodness. It is a particular species of hate.
Our preachers need to be bold, like St John Chrysostom:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.”
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature has in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God has left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Now when he was discoursing of their doctrines, he put before them the world and man’s understanding, telling them that, by the judgment afforded them by God, they might through the things which are seen, have been led as by the hand to the Creator, and then, by not willing to do so, they remained inexcusable.
(snip)
Consider then. It was meet, that the two should be one, I mean the woman and the man. For “the two,” it says, “shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 But this the desire of intercourse effected, and united the sexes to one another. This desire the devil having taken away, and having turned the course thereof into another fashion, he thus sundered the sexes from one another, and made the one to become two parts in opposition to the law of God. For it says, “the two shall be one flesh;” but he divided the one flesh into two: here then is one war. Again, these same two parts he provoked to war both against themselves and against one another. For even women again abused women, and not men only. And the men stood against one another, and against the female sex, as happens in a battle by night. You see a second and third war, and a fourth and fifth; there is also another, for beside what have been mentioned they also behaved lawlessly against nature itself. For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.
Don’t worry, though. You likely will not hear this bold of a homily in your neighborhood Catholic parish anytime soon. And may God have mercy on those who would shy away from it.
S
StudentMI
Guest
You’re right, we should preach that verse to those engaging in homosexual behavior in hopes that they would change. And such preaching should be done with love, as the Church says. That’s the whole point of preaching on the evil of homosexual behavior, that those in danger of condemning themselves for eternity will accept God’s love and mercy. Creating something such as ‘gay marriage’ does not show that kind of love.
C
Corki
Guest
- Why not do both as we have with other types of immoral behavior?
- And in every one of those species, it is an abberation, not a normal activity.
- There are many ways - look at the other thread started today that marriage certificates in some places may not list “husband” and “wife” but use gender neutral terms. But some other ways: a) if you are an employer, you must now recognized and likely pay for benefits for the same sex partner of your employees. b) if you are a manager, you must recognize and welcome the partners in the same way you do spouses. c) if you are a teacher, you must interact with same sex partners of your students’ parents as if they were parents. d) if you are employed in insurance, health care, government administration or public service, you must now include a new group of people in your interactions and transactions, e) if you run a business involved in weddings (photographer, baker, reception hall, wedding planner) you must change your entire business model.** f) If you pay taxes, you are now going to be paying benefits to a whole new class of individuals.**
- semi-functinal. No same-sex partnership can ever provide a child with a nuclear family - one mom, one dad.
- but we can say the same thing about extending voting rights to 12 year olds or inheritance rights to employers. Creating a new right doesn’t meant that there was something deprived previously.
- it’s just as relevent as any other depravity we legislate against.
- Ok, then what about the “victimless crimes” that we also legislate – prostitution, underage drinking, drug use, truancy? All of these are illegal due to a societal responsibility to legislate a moral standard
- No, Muslim cannot justify substitution of Sharia on the basis of any law within our current code of laws. Sharia operates separately from civil law. You so-called “legistlating of morality” are laws within our American system of justice.
- Then why have laws at all?
- Actually the Bible speaks of marriage only as between a man and a woman. Several times. The Bible also says that you should not allow your brother to sin. All of the laws in Western countries have followed the same basic foundation regarding marriage. If we believe it is a grave sin, we are duty bound to resist it - for our brothers as well as for ourselves.
K
kathyhumanist
Guest
Your belief is still just a “belief”. You do not know the “truth” any more than a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Mormon, or an Atheist. Everyone thinks that what they believe is the truth. I, as an atheist, like to post on a Catholic website because I find it fascinating to talk to people of vastly different beliefs. I actually like to debate on the topic, because I feel like I know the “truth” just as much as you feel like you do, and I feel like most Catholics don’t understand atheists at all.Moral relativism is unconvincing. Truth is objective. Truth is not negotiable.
My belief in a Risen Savior is a FACT. His existence is also a historic fact. What He says about Himself is also factual. He says, “I am the Way and the Truth.”
I believe Him. And I believe the Church that He established. Thanks be to God.
I have always found it curious why someone professing to be “atheist” would even care to post at a Catholic website.
Most atheists are not “out to destroy” religion. Most of us are just like you…we believe in what we believe, strongly and passionately, but we don’t have any kind of hate for what other people believe in. I, and most atheists I know, believe that you have just as much right to believe in your religion as we do to NOT believe.
Also, I believe that Christians/Catholics and Atheists, have much more in common than we do in difference. We ALL believe in people doing what is right and good. It’s just that Atheists believe that we don’t need the whole religion thing, to do what is right and good. We ALL believe that certain things are right, and certain things are wrong, unless you are a sociopath. That completely transcends religion, race, nationality, culture, sexual preference, gender, etc. etc. etc. There are good people and bad people within ALL walks of life. Whatever religion you are or are not has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good and moral you are.
S
StudentMI
Guest
He does love them unconditionally. Jesus doesn’t stop loving anyone just because they sin. But they must respond to that love.
As for how I know what God said and meant and wanted, it’s because of the perennial teaching of the Church, and the authority given to the Church by God. You should read Introduction to Christianity by then Cardinal Ratzinger. He talks about atheism in it, and it’s quite fascinating.
E
edwest2
Guest
You already know the Church teaches the reality of Jesus Christ, true man and true God. Anyone who says ‘it’s all the same’ goes against that reality. Good without God? At the time of judgement, we will have to give an account. There is black and white. Not, it’s all just shades of grey.
No standards means no standards and one can justify anything, including having a TV show about a sociopath and calling it “entertainment.” Dexter.
Peace,
Ed
K
kathyhumanist
Guest
Ed, what makes you think that because I am an atheist, that I have “no standards”? If I don’t believe that God exists, then why would I care about “the time of judgement”? I have, in my opinion, very high “standards”. And I believe that all people have standards whether they believe in God or not. In fact, I believe that I am a lot more “Christ-like” than an awful lot of Christians. Good people and bad people come in every race and religion. Everyone is different, and everyone has different views on morality and standards. You
can’t say that just because you are Christian and believe in a certain specific set of
standards, that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
E
edwest2
Guest
K
kathyhumanist
Guest
Thanks Ed. I do appreciate your concern. However, since I do not believe that God exists, I really do not have a need for his “light”. I can have the same peace, and joy, and love, and happiness in this life that you have, and it is actually a bit offensive to me that anyone could think that I can’t have that since I don’t have the same religious beliefs as you.
E
edwest2
Guest
No one needs my permission to do what they want. I don’t know you. And you can say what you want. Just remember, you chose to post here. No one forced you.
Peace,
Ed
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
It is entirely possible to disagree with someone’s lifestyle and still continue to love them and show them compassion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We are not concerned with numbers. Our last Pope already stated the Church will get smaller and smaller because people will want the Church to submit towards their individual desires and world trends and fads, instead of them submitting to the Church.
Not all that glitters is gold, do not be too concerned about what works in the modern world. Not everything that works in the modern world or is legal in the modern world will be acceptable in the Kingdom of Heaven. We will not yield to world trends just because it is fashionable or legal. If you know anything about the Church you already know that.
You are using the term ‘the gays’ very liberally, do you mean all gays, you are speaking for the entire gay population or just the ones you know? Do you have the link to the evidence or research that shows that a majority of gays on the planet feel this way about the Church or Jesus?
I know some gay colleagues at work, at Church and personally I am close to a couple of gay people and none have them have ever stated “I feel like Jesus hates me” or “the Catholics hate us”.
R
R_C
Guest
- As far as Catholics go, masturbation, pornography and contraceptives are grave sins against life and against the dignity of the woman, of the virgin, of the spouse. Pornography *is *a form of prostitution, and partially banned. As far as the negative impacts that they can have, I would recommend you to discuss this with a psychologist dealing with addiction to porn, or someone who is battling with or has overcome it.
Redefining “procreation” won’t change what procreation is. For some reason yet unknown to science, we have two bodies with very peculiar characteristics: the male and the female. It so happens that these bodies are configured to be united and by this union a cell is born which contains half the dna of each of the two and which will become another human being. That is procreation. Orphans were born by procreation. Adoption is not procreation. And if the orphan lost a mother and a father, he has a right to a mother and a father.
The hypothesis of APA does not make homosexuality normal: it says that a heterosexual can experience homosexual tendencies. If it was “normal”, it would not have taken until 1992 for the scientific community to reach a “consensus” that it is not one of many deviations from the heterosexual orientation…and yet, why is it that only 3.4% of American adults are not heterosexual, according to several significant studies?
Again, factually inaccurate. Just take a good look at the literature on the topic.
Oh, of course. But that is why the state screens potential families. And in my eyes and the eyes of many, a child born of a woman and a man has a right to be grown in a family with a woman and a man.
Catholics also have short relationships sometimes. But we are expected to date only to discern matrimony, and without fornication. As for the same findings, I quoted the statistics about “straights”, and they don’t say that. Of course, if you refer to the modern-day hedonistic trend of going out for the sole purpose of having casual pre-marital sex, that’s another story.
Disciples of Christ call prostitution adultery and fornication, and condemn them, for it is written that adulterers and fornicators must repent of their sins or embrace eternal separation from the Lord. As far as what the juries do or say, I could not care any less than if you mentioned what the juries of Babylon or Athens did, for human law varies immensely with time and culture.
There is greater risk in the advent of relativism, atheism, and the culture of death in the USA.
A straw man? How is that a decent reply? It was the Catholics that, to begin with, opposed slavery when everyone was ok with it. It was the Catholics who protected Native Americans while others were intent in exploiting and slaughtering them. Get a good history book. Peaceful missionaries faced hostile tribes (many were tortured and murdered brutally) leading many to conversion and an attitude of charity and collaboration. It was especially the merit of certain British non-Catholic groups when slaughtering occurred. An example? By 1634 the Franciscan Friars established missions in Florida and Georgia, converting over 30,000 native Americans. Most were destroyed and slaughtered by the British protestants during Queen Anne’s War.
Sure, a la maniere of heretics: cherry-picking passages, adding the word “alone” where it does not belong, ripping of books from the Canon used for 1200 years, and ignoring the tradition of the Church Fathers who learned the faith from the apostles and their first successors in the centuries were there was no Bible.
Sure, but every day there is yet another Christian denomination under the sun. 40,000 and counting. Christianity would look like a joke thanks to them, especially since Christ willed all to be of one accord, eating one bread, and becoming one flock with one shepherd. Thank God the vast majority of Christians are in the apostolic Churches (1,2 billion Catholics, 200 million Orthodox).
Anyways, do keep advocating for immorality and pointing your finger against the Church. Who knows, perhaps you and those who reason like you will be successful, and we will finally go back to the days of Nero, where women and homosexuals will be truly liberated and Christians - true Christians, I mean - will pray underground amidst the tombs of the saints or be arrested for their faith. Already 100,000 Christians are murdered every year.
R
R_C
Guest
Already by these affirmations your standards are exposed for what they are.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Hey take that back. I looooovvvveeee Dexter.
It’s the only American show I watch (bit of a British shows addict, dunno why I just think they do it better).
It’s okay I can tell the difference between reality and the show. I can understand why you would find it disturbing though Ed.
Peace
M
Michael57
Guest
Again, there are absolute truths. There are absolute moral truths. All belief systems are not equal. I say that not out of malice, but out of years of looking for truth.
If you care to discuss this further, I recommend that you start a thread with a catchy subject like “All beliefs are equal” or “Atheist here willing to talk about religious beliefs”. We are WAY off topic.
You haven’t really looked at religion very seriously, have you? I mean really studied it to find out if it has any foundational truths, right? And certainly not Christianity?
Another time perhaps?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Not just Catholics, many people from all denominations and religions have been hateful towards gays and other people with certain sins. We all should, as a human race, rethink how we deal with gays and also of other people who have been hated on for what they are or things they have done. God commands to love all, no exceptions.
Just because you are born gay doesn’t mean it is biologically normal. People are born blind, or missing limbs. You can never call those normal, why call being gay normal?
Depends what you mean by this. All sins affect all people, even though it may not be obvious. While gay marriage as an act of the civil government indeed does not affect how straight people get married or treat their marriage, same sex marriage does have adverse effects to the society.
Aren’t they already legally and equally protected as children of a single parent, as all other children of single heterosexual parents are?
This really proves that all gay marriage is about are government benefits.
I have lasting relationships with my friends who are of the same gender. But to see a relationship of gays as equal to a marriage of a man and a woman is plain wrong. It is not.
I agree with this, but that doesn’t mean we should just turn our society into a barbarian society. Murder is a moral issue, should we make murder legal as well?
A. They will do that regardless
B. All laws are based on a moral code. Saying that we shouldn’t legislate based on morality is an oxymoron.
But as noted above, you want them to follow the Quran? Like I said, all laws are based on a moral code. Why not the Bible? Would you rather have the writings of Confucius? Code of Hammurabi?
Can you publish the numbers for this? Because a lot of Protestant churches have and even celebrate openly gay pastors, and they officiate in gay weddings.
Protestant communities don’t even survive a decade thanks to their revolving doctrines
I agree with this statement, but not in a way that is interpreted to mean that we should embrace their sin. Sin is sin. We need to love them as creations of God whom He created in His image and likeness. Loving someone is also trying to save them from sin, there is no dichotomy there.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Fate of homosexual marriage is not a decided issue. 36 states have banned homosexual marriage and recently homosexual marriage did not advance in Illinois.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Wow, lots of assumptions here.
Can we go back to preaching the Gospel now, rather than trying to preach the truth about marriage?
Is that like asking, “Can we stop beating our wives now?”
- Status