Pro-life does not mean anti-gay

[Promotor_Fidei]

Penny Plain:

Do go on. It’s all becoming so clear, the way you explain it.

Thanks, Penny; I’m glad you liked it.

Our Church wasn’t founded on compromise. If only the early martyrs had worshiped the Emperor just a little bit, just a formality, simply mouthed some words, think what more could have been accomplished with their lives. But that is man’s wisdom, not God’s.

“You can kill us, but you can’t hurt us”, Justin Martyr

chi.gospelcom.net/quotes/quote002.shtml

St. Thomas More, was also terrible at compromising on matters of public sin. Just abysmal…

'He had every reason to deny his Faith – his family pleaded with him to go along with King Henry and multitudes that surrounded him were more then willing to compromise their Faith. As a matter of fact, only one bishop, St. John Fisher, held fast to the Catholic Church. He, too, was martyred. When we are pressured by family, friends and the world to compromise our faith or morals, let us remember St. Thomas More.’

monksofadoration.org/More.html

I can’t think of St. Thomas More without remembering that dramatic and sorrowful line from “A Man For All Seasons”… “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”

Or for that matter… if only Jesus Christ himself had talked his way out of crucifixion and lived. Imagine what he might have accomplished!

So… yes, I don’t think a Christian should compromise where approving of sin is concerned. Compassion, always, charity, first and foremost, compromise, no.

There’s a big difference between working with unrepentant, public sinners for a common good and inviting them to sing in a church. The latter involves a sign of approval because a church, at least our Church, is a sacred place.

For some religions a church is just another building, like an auditorium. And if that’s all it is to that parish, then the parish is in short supply of Christians.

Compromising with sin weakens faith. Each little selling off of the soul becomes easier, until nothing is left. I would much rather fiercely embrace and strongly serve my Lord.

Here’s an article on Unitarians (who don’t believe in much of anything). Perhaps you’ll see why I used them as an example: macgregorministries.org/cult_groups/unitarians.html

And then America will be like Canada where priests will get thrown in the pokey.

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
– Edmund Burke

 

[Traditional_Ang]

buffalo:

You can write a letter to the editor here to correct this young lady: LetterToEditor@buffnews.com

Guidelines for Everybody’s Column The Buffalo NewsTM welcomes letters. Write to Everybody’s Column, The Buffalo NewsTM, One News Plaza, P.O. Box 100, Buffalo, NY, 14240.

Alternatively, you may fax your letter to 716-856-5150 or you may send an email to LetterToEditor@buffnews.com.

** Every single letter which we print in the paper is verified by telephone, so be sure to sign your letter and include your address and a day-time phone number.

Letters should be no more than 200 words.**

Buffalo:

Letter sent to LetterToEditor@buffnews.com :

Re: Pro-life does not mean anti-gay

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050628/3049818.asp

Sir:

Patty Doyle’s assertion, “Gay people are born gay. My gay cousin did not chose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight. It is important to know that pro-life does not equal anti-gay,” is not justified by the available scientific evidence. Although a some of homosexuals may be born with a fixed same sex attraction, others seem to acquire theirs as a result of environmental factors and choices that they make.

Ms. Doyle also seems to be ignorant of the Jewish and Christian teaching which opposes any form of extra marital sexual activity or sexual activity which isn’t open to the possible creation of human life, or that that teaching is based on some basic beliefs about God, Man and Woman and our role in His Creation.

Since the Pro-Life Agenda is part of the Culture of Life, it must oppose the Culture of Death, to which any form of promiscuity, (including homosexual activity) contributes.

Regards,
Name & Address on Original

I tried to keep this to science and to what most serious Christians and Jews agree on and what’s been taught in our religions.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Promotor Fidei:

Thanks, Penny; I’m glad you liked it.

Our Church wasn’t founded on compromise. If only the early martyrs had worshiped the Emperor just a little bit, just a formality, simply mouthed some words, think what more could have been accomplished with their lives. But that is man’s wisdom, not God’s.

“You can kill us, but you can’t hurt us”, Justin Martyr

chi.gospelcom.net/quotes/quote002.shtml

St. Thomas More, was also terrible at compromising on matters of public sin. Just abysmal…

'He had every reason to deny his Faith – his family pleaded with him to go along with King Henry and multitudes that surrounded him were more then willing to compromise their Faith. As a matter of fact, only one bishop, St. John Fisher, held fast to the Catholic Church. He, too, was martyred. When we are pressured by family, friends and the world to compromise our faith or morals, let us remember St. Thomas More.’

monksofadoration.org/More.html

I can’t think of St. Thomas More without remembering that dramatic and sorrowful line from “A Man For All Seasons”… “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”

Or for that matter… if only Jesus Christ himself had talked his way out of crucifixion and lived. Imagine what he might have accomplished!

So… yes, I don’t think a Christian should compromise where approving of sin is concerned. Compassion, always, charity, first and foremost, compromise, no.

There’s a big difference between working with unrepentant, public sinners for a common good and inviting them to sing in a church. The latter involves a sign of approval because a church, at least our Church, is a sacred place.

For some religions a church is just another building, like an auditorium. And if that’s all it is to that parish, then the parish is in short supply of Christians.

Compromising with sin weakens faith. Each little selling off of the soul becomes easier, until nothing is left. I would much rather fiercely embrace and strongly serve my Lord.

Here’s an article on Unitarians (who don’t believe in much of anything). Perhaps you’ll see why I used them as an example: macgregorministries.org/cult_groups/unitarians.html

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
– Edmund Burke

Well Sald, Promotor Fidei,.

May the Lord bless you and keep you. Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

quote=Penny Plain

You just don’t get that we have a sincere disagreement. You insist on insult and ridicule.

I’m done with you. Good luck…
[/quote]

Penny:

I’m sorry, but I don’t see an insult there.

You are the one who wishes the Church to change it’s teachings to suit you and your friends. You’re the one who wants to pick and choose which Teachings of the Catholic Church in the area of Human Sexuality you will follow and those you can ignore. That situation has become all too common in the Western World, which is why the parishes are shrinking and closing and they can’t recruit enough enough men to be Ordained as priests.

As the liberal collumnist for the NYTimes (Maureen Dowd?) so apply put it, “The cafeteria is now closed.” I’m sorry that you’re disappointed, but those are the facts of Life.

You might have gotten used to the Catholic Church (esp. in the USA & Canada) that tried to accommodate people such as you and your friends because of the fear of making waves. But, the priests (and some Bishops) were doing that against the explicit instructions of the Pope, the Bishop in Chief of the Church.

The election of Pope Benedict XVI means they are ready to obey those instructions, which means, “The cafeteria (really) is closed.”

You’re going to have to make a decision to try to live the whole faith and beg for God’s Grace and the Holy Spirit’s help to do that, or you’re going to have to ask yourself if you really want to live in a Church that lives, or tries to live, only part of the faith.

But you can no longer insist on living only part of the Faith and claim to be a faithful Catholic. It just isn’t going to fly anymore.

That’s why the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers claimed we needed God’s Grace, the help of the Holy Spirit, the prayers of our fellow Christians and the Sacraments of the Church to make it.

And, that’s why the Stations of the Cross include 3 FALLS! and, One of the Sacraments is called “The Sacrament of Reconciliation”.

May the Lord bless you and keep you. Michael

 

[Lisa_N]

quote=Penny Plain

You just don’t get that we have a sincere disagreement. You insist on insult and ridicule.

I’m done with you. Good luck…
[/quote]

Thank you to Edmund and Michael for responding to PP. I hope she will actually engage and respond to the points you made instead of a glib one liner as she responded to me.

Penny as both Edmund and Michael have stated, you seem to want to pick and choose what teachings you will accept and what teachings are invalid. Instead of responding with some sort of reasoning or support for your “pick n choose” approach you simply dismiss the poster and thus lose the opportunity to make a case for your position.

Too bad. I’d really like to understand how you can support your thought process.

Lisa N

 

[Jerusha]

It is a given that gays have the right to life. Anyone who denies such is not pro-life. However, their sex acts deny the procreative aspect of sex. Therefore, the two movements are, and should be, totally separate issues.

They are so far out there ---- it probably involves the selfish purpose of having a larger pool of adoptable children. And any person who chooses to give her child up for adoption should have the right to choose parents who would raise the child as she would want it raised if she were in better circumstances.

 

[buffalo]

Traditional Ang:

Buffalo:

Letter sent to LetterToEditor@buffnews.com :

Re: Pro-life does not mean anti-gay

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050628/3049818.asp

Sir:

Patty Doyle’s assertion, “Gay people are born gay. My gay cousin did not chose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight. It is important to know that pro-life does not equal anti-gay,” is not justified by the available scientific evidence. Although a some of homosexuals may be born with a fixed same sex attraction, others seem to acquire theirs as a result of environmental factors and choices that they make.

Ms. Doyle also seems to be ignorant of the Jewish and Christian teaching which opposes any form of extra marital sexual activity or sexual activity which isn’t open to the possible creation of human life, or that that teaching is based on some basic beliefs about God, Man and Woman and our role in His Creation.

Since the Pro-Life Agenda is part of the Culture of Life, it must oppose the Culture of Death, to which any form of promiscuity, (including homosexual activity) contributes.

Regards,
Name & Address on Original

I tried to keep this to science and to what most serious Christians and Jews agree on and what’s been taught in our religions.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael

Thanks! Flood them with letters like this. They will have to print a few of them.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Traditional Ang:

But you can no longer insist on living only part of the Faith and claim to be a faithful Catholic. It just isn’t going to fly anymore.

Thanks for sharing. I am not sure what my allegedly dubious Catholicism has to do with the original topic of this thread, though. **My point is that an organization formed to do one thing should not be doing other things that are unrelated to its original mission.

**That’s it.
If it does, the organization risks losing those who support the original mission but disagree with the other, unrelated things that the organization is doing. Not all right-to-lifers are Catholics, you know, and not all the Catholic right-to-lifers are “faithful Catholics” within your definition, TraditionalAng. The letter-writer is one such person; I would be another if I belonged to this organization (which I don’t). This is unfortunate because there is strength in numbers.

The individual members of the BPLC can do what they please. If they want to dress up as Merino sheep and recited the sonnets of Shakespeare in Old Church Slavonic, that is fine with me. When they claim to be acting for the BPLC, then the BPLC’s membership has a right to say, “(Ahem) Not in our name, you don’t.”

PF, I do know what Unitarians are. I still don’t know why you are holding the BPLC to the standard that you expect of a faithful Catholic when you don’t even claim that it’s a Catholic organization. And surely you’re not claiming that the BPLC invited the Buffalo Gay Men’s Chorus to sing in a Catholic church, are you?

Allhers, yes, I’ve heard of Courage. I have great respect for its members and what they are trying to do in their own lives. I am wondering, though, why you (like LisaN) seem to feel it necessary to believe that my disagreement is based on malice or stupidity.

As for LisaN, sheesh. I have better things to do than :banghead:

 

[legeorge]

Jerusha:

It is a given that gays have the right to life. Anyone who denies such is not pro-life. However, their sex acts deny the procreative aspect of sex. Therefore, the two movements are, and should be, totally separate issues.

They are so far out there ---- it probably involves the selfish purpose of having a larger pool of adoptable children. And any person who chooses to give her child up for adoption should have the right to choose parents who would raise the child as she would want it raised if she were in better circumstances.

Oh, yes. All the benevolent gays are going to adopt all the children we horrible heteros don’t want. OK, let’s not forget that many many homosexual couples choose to buy children by way of surrogate motherhood (if men) and in-vitro fertilization (if women) resulting in the dehumanization of the person and the ethical dilemnas of how to “dispose” of unwanted frozen embryos. Or maybe all these gay couples will adopt all the other “unwanted frozen embryos”, giving them a loving home devoid of mother and father, and solve all the problems in this country by ignoring God’s Word and doing whatever they please. We, as pro-lifers should definately make sure we ignore these issues, right?

I didn’t see anywhere that this pro-life group of Catholics left their anti-abortion posts and drug every single member of the BRTL organization down to the Catholic church with signs glued to their hands to protest active homosexuals singing in a Catholic Church. So, now we are only allowed to care about one issue if we want to belong to a group? This is idiotic logic. How can a compassionate, concerned Catholic not be involved in a vareiety of issues? I belong to a number of groups. That does not mean that every member of every group I belong to is involved in every issue I am involved in. Just because you are a member of a “right to life organization” does not mean you cannot belong to a “save marriage” organization or be involved in that issue.

 

[Jerusha]

If gays want to participate in the right to life movement, they should have that right. However it is divisive to politically unify the two movements, when other members do not subscribe to their views.

Clearer?

If a woman has no objection to having her child raised by two people in a same-gender household, that is her right. It can prevent other violations of nature from occurring.

 

[Penny_Plain]

legeorge:

I didn’t see anywhere that this pro-life group of Catholics left their anti-abortion posts and drug every single member of the BRTL organization down to the Catholic church with signs glued to their hands to protest active homosexuals singing in a Catholic Church. So, now we are only allowed to care about one issue if we want to belong to a group? This is idiotic logic. How can a compassionate, concerned Catholic not be involved in a vareiety of issues? I belong to a number of groups. That does not mean that every member of every group I belong to is involved in every issue I am involved in. Just because you are a member of a “right to life organization” does not mean you cannot belong to a “save marriage” organization or be involved in that issue.

Of course not. Don’t be silly.

But you are not allowed to hijack one group’s name to do something else. If you are a member of the (Where do you live? Say, Topeka. Topeka’s nice.) Topeka Right to Life Committe, you can’t use the name of the TRLC to protest a farm that is dumping pig manure into the municipal swimming pool. You’re certainly free to do that (and, as somebody who has swum in Topeka and probably will again, I hope you do), but you can’t do it on behalf of a right-to-life group.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Jerusha:

If gays want to participate in the right to life movement, they should have that right. However it is divisive to politically unify the two movements, when other members do not subscribe to their views.

Clearer?

Crystal. Thank you.

It is your turn for a while, now.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

.

As for LisaN, sheesh. I have better things to do than :banghead:

Uh no I never mentioned malice or stupidity but rather your inconsisency in your approach to Catholic teachings. I don’t understand why you won’t provide any reasoning for your approval of homosexuality and desires for acceptance of active homosexuals in the Catholic church, when in fact the Church is quite clear that active homosexual behavior is not acceptable. Yet you approve of the Church’s stance on abortion and are willing to support that position. IOW you don’t support the Church but only those teachings you approve of.

That isn’t a case of stupidity or malice but I think it’s rather misguided thinking. Maybe you would like to provide some support for your disagreement with the Church’s position on homosexual behavior?

Lisa N

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Maybe you would like to provide some support for your disagreement with the Church’s position on homosexual behavior?

No, I wouldn’t.

Why not?

Because it is not what we are talking about here.:banghead:

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

Initially I posted a genius response to this which would have brought you over to my side, Brad. Unfortunately, Satan (through his minions, Michael Dell and Bill Gates) caused that post to be destroyed, thus destroying our chances for unity and throwing the Forces of Light into greater disarray.

You’re so close, Brad. You see the same things I do, but you draw such different conclusions. You see that linking the pro-life cause to anti-homosexuality issues is going to cost us support. You realize that those of us linked to “sexual sins” (which I brought up because this thread seems to want to link the pro-life movement to the “culture of li…” I mean, “Culture of Life,” which includes all those issues) are going to back away from such a movement.

Heck, you even seem happy that the pro-life movement will consist only of “faithful Catholics.”

This is foolishness. Some things are more important than others. Even you agree that abortion is a greater evil than homosexuality. Numbers lead to political power, and the Buffalo Pro-Life Committee is not the second coming of Jesus Christ. I expect it can do a lot more with 15,000 supporters than it can with 15. Weren’t we told to be subtle?

Be subtle. Fight one fight at a time. Don’t turn away people like me who will fight tooth and nail on abortion but disagree vehemently with some of the other CULTURE OF LIFE issues. You need us, and we need you. The babies need all of us.

Don’t make us hold our noses to join you.

And, on a related note, I was also somewhat puzzled by Buffalo’s joy that I was going to write a letter to the paper.

I guess you are right. I do draw different conclusions. I’m concerned about more the murder of babies. I’m concerned about the murder of souls. So be it.

You are acting as if homosexual unions/marriage and the normalization thereof is a trivial issue. It is not a trivial issue - it is an issue of enormous importance. It is an issue that threatens to break apart the American version of the church, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It has the power to eventually bring down the country. If you do not understand this then we will not understand each other (I would have liked to have seen that genius response that would sway me as that would me a miracle in and of itself ).
Civilizations and churches have indeed fallen that have been so immersed in diabolical sexual sin that they accepted homosexuality as “normal”. This is history. This is fact. And the facts that homosexuals have a dramatically lower lifespan than heterosexuals and that the spread of STD is rampant among homosexuals and young heterosexuals simply confirms this logical trend. The sexual issues are linked. To seperate them is not to understand the full picture.

It’s not my fault that so many have created their own versions of truth. Like I said, Christ started from scratch with 12. Seems like we need a renewal of His vision.

Finally, I do not turn ANYBODY away, nor did Christ. But many turned away from Him. Now, considering that Christ was God and I am a weak, sinful human, I wouldn’t be surprised if people turn away from what I believe is right. However, the bottom line is that you and others, by holding conditions upons who you will work with in the fight for saving babies, are creating the divisions. I will work with anybody anytime in their effort to save babies and I will be not ashamed.

Who taught you to be subtle? For crying out loud that is the last thing we need to be. Babies can be slaughtered into pieces and that is socially ok but talking about it is not?

Hold out your noses? Should we lay out a red carpet? It is between you and God whether you fight to save lives. I have nothing to do with it except for my prayers for you.

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

My point exactly. Some things are more important than others. You admit that (although both are important) abortion is more important than homosexuality. So why not keep the pro-life movement focused on abortion, the greater evil?

I’m not so sure it is a greater evil if you look at the overall results and not just isolated individual cases. Both involve death, disease, grave sin, and possibly spritual damnation.

 

[legeorge]

Penny Plain:

Of course not. Don’t be silly.

But you are not allowed to hijack one group’s name to do something else. If you are a member of the (Where do you live? Say, Topeka. Topeka’s nice.) Topeka Right to Life Committe, you can’t use the name of the TRLC to protest a farm that is dumping pig manure into the municipal swimming pool. You’re certainly free to do that (and, as somebody who has swum in Topeka and probably will again, I hope you do), but you can’t do it on behalf of a right-to-life group.

You must be reading something other than me. The article never said anything about the specifics. She said she didn’t like the “committee leadership’s opinion on gays”. I don’t see any proof of what you are accusing. Do you have some information other than that in the OP? Because I don’t see any facts there stating that these people did anything in the name of the organization. Some people who are on the right to life committee apparently protested a gay choir singing in a Catholic Church. This is inferred, but there are no specifics given. She just doesn’t like other people having an opinion in opposition to her own. Sounds like whining liberal logic to me. But I only have the facts I read in the OP.

 

[legeorge]

Jerusha:

If gays want to participate in the right to life movement, they should have that right. However it is divisive to politically unify the two movements, when other members do not subscribe to their views.

Clearer?

For Pete’s sake, where are you getting the idea that people are politically unifying the two movements? Yes, there are links between them, but where are the facts that prove what you claim? This woman didn’t like someone else’s opinion. So now you can’t be on a right to life committee and be committed to another cause at the same time? :ehh: Give me a break! This woman seems surprised that Catholic people who just happen to belong to the same pro-life group as her actually have Catholic views about other things as well! Why should that be surprising or offensive to her? They didn’t make her protest! I fail to see any problem with religious people acting on their convictions no matter what organizations they belong to. Remember all those rights we’re all supposed to have? Guess they don’t apply to anyone with religious convictions, huh?

 

[fix]

Jerusha:

If a woman has no objection to having her child raised by two people in a same-gender household, that is her right. It can prevent other violations of nature from occurring.

No such right exists. The children have an authentic right not be raised by same sex couples.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

My point is that an organization formed to do one thing should not be doing other things that are unrelated to its original mission.

Point taken. I have read many posts on various aspects of the Culture of Life. One thing has come to the foreground of my awareness of this culture. Public profile has been heavy on the aspects and light on the whole. The result has been to confuse Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The silence or hesitancy of many (but not all) bishops has exascerbated the confusion.

We have lost communion. Communion with God, communion with each other, communion with creation.

Where we find ourselves is in a place of bits and pieces; a wasteland of jumbled concepts and inventions of being.

The Culture of Life is a unified teaching. What you are suggesting brings to mind an old story of two women claiming to be the mother of one child. The king rules that the baby be cut in two so that both women may be satisfied. Only the true mother would sacrifice her claim for custody by relinquishing her claim for custody. Why? Because the child can only exist as a child by not being cut into two pieces.

The same with the Culture of Life. Those who truly love Life and are grateful to God for the gift of Life will not be seduced into cutting it up into ‘manageable’ or ‘politically correct’ pieces. God is greater than our ideas about him. Life is greater than our ideas about it. Communion is ever so much more valuable than being safe or politically correct.