ON TAPE: MINNEAPOLIS Priest Blasts Vatican Cardinal and Archbishop over Homosexuality During Homily

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**
However in his homily Fr. Tibesar, pastor of Saint Frances Cabrini Church, cast the Archbishop and Cardinal in the role of Pharisee and those who unrepentantly counter Church teaching on homosexuality as worthy of the praise of Christ.
Click to expand...
**

Yes Fr, this Jesus who died to free us from the bondage of sin would approve of it. :rolleyes:

**
“What would Jesus say today if he were telling the parable in our Gospel of Luke?” asked the priest as he began a series of four versions of his retelling.
Click to expand...
**

Probably like He said to the woman taken in adultery, “Go away and sin no-more.”
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
The status of homosexuality in the St Paul Archdiocese varies wildly from the archbishop to the priests to the pews. This priest is still more than capable to preach to others, Catholicism is a broad tent, not a rigid, narrow belief system.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define narrow… within the ‘boundaries of truth’ or ‘anything goes?’ Depends also on what you mean by broad tent. Certainly, the Church cannot teach two different things that are mutually exclusive; e.g., homosexual behavior cannot be morally licit and illicit at the same time. One view necessarily must be wrong - broad tent or not.
 
I know this has been said before, but most likely on a different thread. Homosexuality, same sex attraction, itself is not a sin. It is the practice of homosexuality that is sinful and anything that leads to and furthers that practice. There are many homosexuals who live holy and chase lives. Sad to say, those who take part in what I call their gay shame days are the ones that do much harm. I find their in your face attitude to be most offensive, especially those who interrupt masses and profane churches. I must admit, that is an extreme test of my Christian charity.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Chellow said:
No in this issue the Church is rigid, and narrow, the Church can not approve something that God calls an abomination.
Click to expand...
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
Click to expand...
So, clearly, based on God’s word, this only applies to men. Very rigid indeed!

Nohome
 
saylo said:
Vatican refirms its stance against gay seminarians

www.catholicnewsagency.com/news.php?n=12677

You will have to scroll down a few items.
Click to expand...
Vatican
Vatican says prohibition against gays in seminaries is universal
Click to expand...
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/CardinalBertone.jpg
Click to expand...
Vatican City, May 19, 2008 / 09:21 am (CNA).- Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has sent a letter to the bishops of the world with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI reaffirming the norms established by the Congregation for Catholic Education in the 2005 document, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” as universal and without exceptions.

In the brief “Rescriptum ex audientia” –a written response to various queries—Cardinal Bertone said the norms establishing the selection of candidates to the priesthood are valid “for all houses of formation for the priesthood, including those under the Dicasteries for Eastern Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples, and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.”

The letter, which Cardinal Bertone said was issued in response “to numerous requests for clarification,” implies that the prohibition against accepting homosexual candidates in seminaries applies not only to diocesan seminaries but also to those of religious orders and congregations, as well as to those that are located in mission territories.
The 2005 Instruction indicated the Congregation for Catholic Education, “in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’."

“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies,” the 2005 document also said.
Click to expand...
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I know this has been said before, but most likely on a different thread. Homosexuality, same sex attraction, itself is not a sin. It is the practice of homosexuality that is sinful and anything that leads to and furthers that practice. There are many homosexuals who live holy and chase lives. Sad to say, those who take part in what I call their gay shame days are the ones that do much harm. I find their in your face attitude to be most offensive, especially those who interrupt masses and profane churches. I must admit, that is an extreme test of my Christian charity.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
I just lately heard Fr. Corapi’s take on homosexuality in the church. He was having a conversation with someone who told him of his homosexual orientation. His response was, “Boy, can I ever relate to you! You’re called to be just like me…celibate!”😃
 
I think it’s fairly obvious more and more people are becoming priests to just lead people astray.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Using rigid language related to the “truth” unfairly closes off discussion on anything, as the discussion is over before it even starts. The priest has his views, you have yours, neither is incorrect, it just comes down to personal differences.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that discussion concerned thousands vs millions of murdered innocent babies. Admittedly, even one aborted human is one too many; however, the priest’s views on this subject were not only incorrect, but scandalously misinformed on what should be the number one current violation of the laws of God/nature. It would seem as if this father has his priorities quite muddled.

(And do you really think of this as a question of “personal differences”?)

Anna
 
irenaeus1 said:
Argument from silence for Leviticus. Also, you neglected Romans 1.
Click to expand...
I neglected nothing. Nor did I throw around scripture in the first place. Just commented on Leviticus as that was what was quoted here.

Nohome
 
Anna_Elizabeth said:
Unfortunately, that discussion concerned thousands vs millions of murdered innocent babies. Admittedly, even one aborted human is one too many; however, the priest’s views on this subject were not only incorrect, but scandalously misinformed on what should be the number one current violation of the laws of God/nature. It would seem as if this father has his priorities quite muddled.

(And do you really think of this as a question of “personal differences”?)

Anna
Click to expand...
This issue was about homosexuality, not abortion. And even the abortion issue has debate on how to best handle it in relation to the greater society as a whole. Too much rigidity and you turn off people who most often would listen to you if there was a give and take in the discussion.
 
irenaeus1 said:
Depends on how you define narrow… within the ‘boundaries of truth’ or ‘anything goes?’ Depends also on what you mean by broad tent. Certainly, the Church cannot teach two different things that are mutually exclusive; e.g., homosexual behavior cannot be morally licit and illicit at the same time. One view necessarily must be wrong - broad tent or not.
Click to expand...
Which is why we are having the discussions about it in parishes and other places around the world. Neither view has to be wrong, this is not a binary argument. As with most things in life in relation to the world around us it is some fluid changing shade of grey.
 
Nohome said:
I neglected nothing. Nor did I throw around scripture in the first place. Just commented on Leviticus as that was what was quoted here.
Click to expand...
No, you stated, “So, clearly, based on God’s word, this only applies to men. Very rigid indeed!” Leviticus is not the totality of God’s Word, so your comment was not only a comment on Leviticus. Second, with regard to Leviticus, it’s still an argument from silence.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Which is why we are having the discussions about it in parishes and other places around the world. Neither view has to be wrong, this is not a binary argument. As with most things in life in relation to the world around us it is some fluid changing shade of grey.
Click to expand...
No, the discussion in certain parishes only indicates the moral laxity and theological bankruptcy of certain folks who claim to be Catholic. The “status of homosexuality” does not vary (although certain individual’s erroneous perceptions may vary)… homosexual activity is gravely immoral - no shades of grey. I would also be curious to know how in your non-binary world (code for no moral absolutes) that homosexual behavior can be morally licit and illicit at the same time.
 
irenaeus1 said:
No, you stated, “So, clearly, based on God’s word, this only applies to men. Very rigid indeed!” Leviticus is not the totality of God’s Word, so your comment was not only a comment on Leviticus. Second, with regard to Leviticus, it’s still an argument from silence.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know what I said, I wrote it. It was a direct comment to another poster about Leviticus 18:22.
 
irenaeus1 said:
No, the discussion in certain parishes only indicates the moral laxity and theological bankruptcy of certain folks who claim to be Catholic. The “status of homosexuality” does not vary (although certain individual’s erroneous perceptions may vary)… homosexual activity is gravely immoral - no shades of grey. I would also be curious to know how in your non-binary world (code for no moral absolutes) that homosexual behavior can be morally licit and illicit at the same time.
Click to expand...
No, it indicates a discussion from the chancery to the parish. The status does vary. The view in this parish is that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual relations in relation to one or two genders involved. What the people in the parish (and similar ones around the world) is for the same-gender ones to be the same as different-gender ones, in that every effort is made to have it a long term monogamous one and all the legal rights that go along with it.

You have to relate it to the Nov 15 issue of the Catholic Spirit which the OP refers too. That was a harsh and very mean spirited editorial by the Archbishop without a shred of compassion whatsoever. In that editorial even showing compassion was a “mortal sin” based on his interpretation of Canon Law, which is his but not everyone’s interpretation. What the parish was trying to do here was to point out the human element in these discussions and not leave it at a cold, harsh, binary assessment by the Archbishop (he was adjunct when the editorial came out and now has assumed the full position).
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
No, it indicates a discussion from the chancery to the parish. The status does vary. The view in this parish is that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual relations in relation to one or two genders involved. What the people in the parish (and similar ones around the world) is for the same-gender ones to be the same as different-gender ones, in that every effort is made to have it a long term monogamous one and all the legal rights that go along with it.
Click to expand...
Pure garbage and you know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top