Yes, please keep repeating that after I provide loads of articles detailing their steadfast refusal to accept Church teachings, their repeated censures by +Cordileone and other bishops, their personnel links to other dissenting organizations. But all this is not the reason, it is because they said the g-word.Need I repeat myself that criticism of them is ENTIRELY based on their usage of gay and lesbian terminology?
And why he didn’t give it to the poor. Perhaps Pope Francis should oust him instead.
I’m afraid that Pope Francis has no jurisdiction over Sam Singer!
You do know “gay” is a sociopolitical term with Marxist implications, and not a true representation of the homosexual community?
But this was not a problem for the group.
So clearly there was something bigger stopping the group from signing the agreement.
No?
4 early 20-year-olds meet up at a RCIA pre-planner with a priest. 3 come from extremely wealthy families and are dressed super-sharp, head to toe. 1 comes from a poor family and has somewhat shabby clothing and a tattoo on his neck but is just as enthused as the other three. After all 4 pledge their loyalty to the Church, the priest asks the poor kid to sign an oath of loyalty. He asks if they’re all signing them, and the priest says no, just him, because the priest doesn’t trust him.
I never “demonized” the Archbishop. I just said his style of teaching was incorrect for the area and that he clearly didn’t understand the LGBT community. He doesn’t understand that “gay” and “lesbian” don’t mean what LifeSiteNews goes into hysterics about. But he is clearly a man who tries his best for his community.
.No matter if they were singled out or not. That they didn’t want to sign an oath of allegiance to Church teaching tells you all you need to know. No faithful Catholic would be hesitant to swear their allegiance to Church teaching.
Who is it that saying it’s shameful to be open about that? I go to a particularly orthodox parish in the SF Archdiocese, and our pastor would step in immediately if someone shamed a gay person. That is not preached anywhere around here, so anyone who would do such a thing is striking a different path.Personally, I agree with CALGM that it will be nice one day when it’s not considered shameful to be openly gay in the Church. Openly gay, of course, means open about one’s sexual orientation, not rampantly having sex. Just to be clear that LifeSiteNews is wrong about that too
They weren’t hesitant. They verbally committed themselves fully to Church teaching. They just objected to being treated as if they were untrustworthy. Not signing was their protest at their treatment by the diocese. It wasn’t a statement about their commitment to Catholicism, a commitment they have underlied again and again and again to the diocese and to the Church in general.
I would sign with no problem. What they are asking accords with my faith. In the current environment, I would be especially willing to do it, thankful even that it had been instituted.
I don’t know if you don’t notice because you’re not homosexual, or if you just go to a good diocese, but there are definitely dioceses (usually heavily right-leaning) where even saying one is gay gets one shunned and condescended from the community. I went to a diocese for a long time and had to deal with multiple homilies against gay people (including one where actively gay people were called “idiotic”). It was the single-biggest detriment to my faith that I have ever experienced.
I wouldn’t. If every group were asked to sign it, I would, but I would refuse to dignify a request that sought to single me out based on perceived untrustworthiness merely because I used the words “gay” and “lesbian.” I refuse to legitimize distrust of people who identify as gay or lesbian in the Church. That would contribute to the problem in the Church, not ameliorate it.
I had to sign an oath and go through a program on sexual abuse just to lecture once a week at mass . I don’t see what the problem is
But that’s my point. Everyone who wanted to do what you did has to do that. Imagine if the diocese had said “because you’re [insert race here]” or “because you’re male” or “because you’re straight,” “you have to sign this but no one else who wants to lecture has to.” You wouldn’t be offended if someone asked you to sign an oath because of how you looked or spoke?
Do you agree that gay activism is pushing an ideology in our society that argues for the acceptability of active homosexuality? Do you see this as a threat, not just to the Church and its role in society, but to the salvation of gay persons who embrace this lifestyle? Is the Church not obligated to counter this effort? As a member of the Church and a disciple of Christ, I support this effort. As stated above, I would sign the statement gladly, were I straight or gay, female or male, black, white, blue or polka dot. First and foremost, I am a Christian.
I have been asked in the past to sign morality agreements and I have done so wholeheartedly. I am not objecting to them. I am objecting to only requiring openly gay people to sign them.