Priest In Texas Newspaper: "Homosexual Acts Lead To The Damnation Of Souls" [EWTN]

[Sherry_G]

Yes, but simply because a political tract doesn’t contradict Church teaching doesn’t mean that it is equivalent to Church teaching. Something can avoid contradicting the truth, but that doesn’t mean that it has captured the truth.

This reminds me of the famous quote from former President Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of “is” is…

Abortion is a mortal sin 100% of the time and so is aberrant sexual behaviour. To say that these are somehow “political issues” is a smokescreen. Politicians like to use moral issues when it suits their purposes, however we as Catholics must stand up for what is right regardless. Twisting words is a ploy that is often used to diffuse the truth.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. This is what Jesus did and what we are also called to do. We must correct our brothers or sisters when we see that they are endangering their salvation through obvious sin in a loving and charitable way, but still telling the truth.

 

[remjsmom76]

Funny that you said that. Last week in our bulletin there was a letter written by a priest. I wish I knew what I did with that bulletin so I could write it the way it came out. Anyway, this priest gave the whole lesson as to what marriage means. Marriage comes from the latin words MATRI= mother and MUNUM(?0)= protect. I hope I getting the latin word right. Well it means to protect the mother, who protects the mother…the husband. Then he wrote about nature and how it works. Male lions do not lie with male lions to produce cubs and so forth. He also mentioned this is not something that was made up by the Catholic church. Its been around for a long time…LONGER than the catholic church.

In the end, he finished he letter stating…if you must call it something dont call it Matrimony…call it homomony or unionmony…but leave matrimony out of it.

So…I agree. It shouldnt be call matrimony. They should call it something else. But in him saying that, does it mean its ok to go ahead and marry someone of the same sex?

Is gay marriage really a sin though? I’m genuinely asking, not trying to debate. I was under the impression that being gay is something you can’t help and the crime of homosexuality is gay sex (even the Church says this in the Catechism). So I thought that gays can get married and be openly gay, but they just can’t have (gay) sex in any circumstance.

 

[rlg94086]

Is gay marriage really a sin though? I’m genuinely asking, not trying to debate. I was under the impression that being gay is something you can’t help and the crime of homosexuality is gay sex (even the Church says this in the Catechism). So I thought that gays can get married and be openly gay, but they just can’t have (gay) sex in any circumstance.

Funny that you said that. Last week in our bulletin there was a letter written by a priest. I wish I knew what I did with that bulletin so I could write it the way it came out. Anyway, this priest gave the whole lesson as to what marriage means. Marriage comes from the latin words MATRI= mother and MUNUM(?0)= protect. I hope I getting the latin word right. Well it means to protect the mother, who protects the mother…the husband. Then he wrote about nature and how it works. Male lions do not lie with male lions to produce cubs and so forth. He also mentioned this is not something that was made up by the Catholic church. Its been around for a long time…LONGER than the catholic church.

In the end, he finished he letter stating…if you must call it something dont call it Matrimony…call it homomony or unionmony…but leave matrimony out of it.

So…I agree. It shouldnt be call matrimony. They should call it something else. But in him saying that, does it mean its ok to go ahead and marry someone of the same sex?

The Church teaches that entering into a “gay marriage” or same-sex, civil union is a sin.

 

[1holycatholic]

Is gay marriage really a sin though? I’m genuinely asking, not trying to debate. I was under the impression that being gay is something you can’t help and the crime of homosexuality is gay sex (even the Church says this in the Catechism). So I thought that gays can get married and be openly gay, but they just can’t have (gay) sex in any circumstance.

Homosexual marriage is not possible.

 

[MarianD]

Homosexual marriage is not possible.

Now you’re arguing semantics. I’ll rephrase it then as “Gay Civil Unions”.

I’ve always seen marriage as a two-fold union. One Spiritual Union (the Sacrament of Marriage) and one legal union (under the Law, which is why you need a marriage certificate). Obviously, gays can’t receive the first union since that’s only between a man and a woman. But under Constitutional law, they can receive the second union. Is it a sin to solidify a gay, celibate relationship as a Civil Union?

 

[wisdomseeker]

To lift you up today…take a short break and watch Fr. Rodriquez. What a beautiful church…what a beautiful and holy priest!

youtube.com/watch?v=TQd4dnr3pUI

thank you this is beautiful. to the liberals these people represents holier than thou.

 

[1holycatholic]

Now you’re arguing semantics. I’ll rephrase it then as “Gay Civil Unions”.

I’ve always seen marriage as a two-fold union. One Spiritual Union (the Sacrament of Marriage) and one legal union (under the Law, which is why you need a marriage certificate). Obviously, gays can’t receive the first union since that’s only between a man and a woman. But under Constitutional law, they can receive the second union. Is it a sin to solidify a gay, celibate relationship as a Civil Union?

No.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Church teaches that entering into a “gay marriage” or same-sex, civil union is a sin.

you are not allowed to say that. you cant say it is a sin. the priest said it and got in trouble, remember?

 

[rlg94086]

Now you’re arguing semantics. I’ll rephrase it then as “Gay Civil Unions”.

I’ve always seen marriage as a two-fold union. One Spiritual Union (the Sacrament of Marriage) and one legal union (under the Law, which is why you need a marriage certificate). Obviously, gays can’t receive the first union since that’s only between a man and a woman. But under Constitutional law, they can receive the second union. Is it a sin to solidify a gay, celibate relationship as a Civil Union?

nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

What is the Church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?

On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).
**
**

 

[rlg94086]

Now you’re arguing semantics. I’ll rephrase it then as “Gay Civil Unions”.

I’ve always seen marriage as a two-fold union. One Spiritual Union (the Sacrament of Marriage) and one legal union (under the Law, which is why you need a marriage certificate). Obviously, gays can’t receive the first union since that’s only between a man and a woman. But** under Constitutional law**, they can receive the second union. Is it a sin to solidify a gay, celibate relationship as a Civil Union?

Btw…the bolded portion above is yet to be confirmed. It is an assertion by gay-rights advocates, but the constitutionality can only be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[1holycatholic]

Btw…the bolded portion above is yet to be confirmed. It is an assertion by gay-rights advocates, but the constitutionality can only be decided by the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS can’t create a right that doesn’t exist.

Abortion is a prime example. No one has the right to intentionally end the life of an innocent human being - it is contrary to the lex naturalis upon which the Constitution and, indeed the United States is based.

Homosexual marriage is impossible because it is contrary to the *lex naturalis. *However, it is possible that the fiction of “homosexual marriage” could be imposed on the population by the force of the state.

 

[rlg94086]

SCOTUS can’t create a right that doesn’t exist.

Abortion is a prime example. No one has the right to intentionally end the life of an innocent human being - it is contrary to the lex naturalis upon which the Constitution and, indeed the United States is based.

Homosexual marriage is impossible because it is contrary to the *lex naturalis. *However, it is possible that the fiction of “homosexual marriage” could be imposed on the population by the force of the state.

I didn’t say they would make the correct decision. I said that they are the ones who get to determine whether a law is constitutional.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i do believe in the word of God but only that which is recorded in the Gospels of mathew mark luke and john because these are the words Jesus said. the word of God told by Jesus shows us how Jesus went out to sinners not those who believed its like in marks gospel when Jesus says that a doctor is needed for the ill not the healthy Jesus never spoke against homosexuals and Sodom and Gomarra are untrue and made up stories as i believe that the old testement is the word of man not of God. so love your neighboor as yourself and don’t judge as that is Gods position and lets not forget that Jesus was also human and believed his human teachings as once he insults all those who were not Jews as he says the the scraps of the children fall to the dogs. in those days the Dogs were gentiles and none Jews and the Children were the Jews people of Israel so alot of things in the bible are inaccurate and the Church are trying to work with science well it is scientifically stated that homosexuals do not chose but r born that way and it is down to the X and Y chromosones as i attend school and it is proven. therefore we do not fully understand the origins or the being of homosexual behaviours. God made me that way and i cant help it but i will try to lead a celebate life for the sake of my religious teachings not because God said so. love thy neighboor and do not judge.

if you say you believe in these Gospel, then you must have read that Jesus mentioned sodoma and gomorra, doesnt He? so, if you believe in Jesus you should believe waht Jesus says about what will happened to a city that rejects His teachings.
you say that Jesus never spoke about homosexuals, do you believe because of that it is acceptable to Him then?

it is not written in Sacred Scriptures that God made anyone with these tendencies. no where that i can see. if you find such please let me know.
i am not judge anyone. if you want to live as such, it is up to you and God, but you cannot shut up the Church from speaking out against such a sin. Jesus says: repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand." the Church today, must still echo this to all of us.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Here’s what the opposing priest had to say:

Rev. Rodriguez dogmatically states many absolutes that are not, in reality, dogmatic absolutes. It was erroneous for him to base his position regarding City Council on the claim that the Catholic Church has taught “infallibly” on the issue of homosexuality. In fact, the Catholic Church has never taught infallibly on this or any other moral issue, although, it does teach binding moral principles on many issues. The Church also teaches about the absolute supremacy of the individual conscience enlightened by the Gospel of Christ. God alone is the sole judge of the human conscience

It is scary that he is still is allowed to hold a position in the diocese a San Antonio.

Ahh,Luther would be proud of such comments.conscience…a clear conscience,like Stalin,Hitler,Mao all had…they were convinced they were doing the right and proper thing! I teach a fitness class and its amazing how difficult it is to convince people overwt.that they just eat too much and thus are unhealthy! Judas supposidly was testing Jesus so that He would rise up in a military way and push the occupying Roman army out!College kids protested our trying to keep South Nam free…when we lost that option,the silence of the moral objectors was deafening…how many times have they gone to Nam and helped out in the rice fields etc…the same as here in this moral dilemma. I used to have a sign in book for lateness to my class.if a student arrived too late three times he/she was awarded by an assignment in the library …its amazing how quickly this problem was cured. Shocking that when a priest finally takes a stand in the orthodox manner he is considered radical and out of touch and even mean and unfeeling…a world turned upside down…mmm,what little change I carry in my pockets will fall out…

 

[Dale_M]

As stated earlier, War and the death penalty, for example are not proportionate. So what would be one that you would consider proportionate when scrutinizing candidates? Not to mention the fact that although not material cooperation, it is still remote material cooperation which still should be enough to convince any honest catholic to stay away from this.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he said that proportionate reasons existed. But in his mind, they apparently do. However, I do agree with you about remote material cooperation being of concern, and not something to be dismissed

But that still doesn’t get around the matter of “the five non-negotiables” being a political phrase not used by the Church. The bishop objected to a political tract being handed out in his parishes. Its not an unreasonable thing to do.

 

[Dale_M]

This reminds me of the famous quote from former President Clinton. "That depends on what the meaning of “is” is…

Actually, what I had in mind was the meaning of “Nihil Obstat”, which some authors seek (along with an Imprimatur) for their book. The phrase means “nothing stands in the way.” A Nihil Obstat indicates that the book does not conflict with Catholic teaching. However, that does not mean that it accurately represents the full Catholic teaching.

Abortion is a mortal sin 100% of the time and so is aberrant sexual behaviour. To say that these are somehow “political issues” is a smokescreen.

Yes, abortion is a mortal sin, as is homosexual activity. Stating those points is not political. However, drawing up a list of “non-negotiables” and saying that Catholics shouldn’t vote for a politician if he supports one of those things is political. This is why the tract in question was published and distributed by Catholic Answers Action (a political organization), and not by Catholic Answers (a religious organization.).

 

[estesbob]

Stating those points is not political. However, drawing up a list of “non-negotiables” and saying that Catholics shouldn’t vote for a politician if he supports one of those things is political. This is why the tract in question was published and distributed by Catholic Answers Action (a political organization), and not by Catholic Answers (a religious organization.).

You may consider it political but it is the accurate reflection of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A Catholic simply cannot support a candidate who supports abortion if there is a viable pro-life alternative. Anyone who tells you different is undoubtedly trying to support putting their politics before their faith.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

As for our Bishop, everything Marci has said is right on. Let’s just say he has been high
on my prayer list. I have yet to hear a sermon on abortion being wrong (and it could be
to insert the many helps available to moms-to-be who are in trouble, grandparents,etc
who are hurting, etc. Not political.) I happened to pick up a diocesean newpaper from the
Las Cruces Bishop and, guess what, he was telling his priests to have sermons on the
topic!!
As for the booklets on the five non-negotiables, I believe that the booklets were declared
to be okay and not political. And this from the IRS. Many bishops/priests say that this
is why they didn’t allow them to be distributed.
A bible study at one of our large churches here had asked for a speaker to speak on
embryonic and adult stem cells. The priest found out and wouldn’t allow it.
What is the scripture that starts, "My people thirst…(for knowledge)

 

[Dale_M]

you are not allowed to say that. you cant say it is a sin. the priest said it and got in trouble, remember?

If you are referring to Fr. Rodriguez, I am not sure there is any evidence to suggest that he has gotten in trouble. His bishop did release a statement which reiterated Church teaching on abortion and homosexuality, but also urging compassion.

That article did not mention Fr. Rodriguez. However it did obliquely refer to the conflicting articles written by two priests in his diocese:

First of all, I would like to state that previous columns claiming to speak for Catholic Doctrine were the personal opinions of individuals and do not necessarily express the belief of the Catholic Church.

elpasotimes.com/ci_15852840

 

[estesbob]

If you are referring to Fr. Rodriguez, I am not sure there is any evidence to suggest that he has gotten in trouble. His bishop did release a statement which reiterated Church teaching on abortion and homosexuality, but also urging compassion.

That article did not mention Fr. Rodriguez. However it did obliquely refer to the conflicting articles written by two priests in his diocese:

elpasotimes.com/ci_15852840

And what did he say it was not in accordance with Catholic doctrine?