C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
You mean like people accusing me of being sacrilegious?
- Status
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
You accused me of being sacrilegious.
You called me sacrilegious. That was uncharitable.
And how can one be “apolitical” and still take umbrage over a political statement?
Stop making me the topic.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Back to the topic:
Good news!
Pope Francis continues the “polarizing” and “hateful” theme of Pope Benedict!
In other words: the Papacy is still Catholic!
Well, that ain’t gonna happen folks. So shut up, sit down, grow up, and come to a decision:
Are you finally going to choose an allegiance to the Church’s unchangeable Moral Doctrines, or at least keep your objections to yourselves as you openly obey it’s guidance?
Or are you going to be respectfully honest with the Church (and yourselves) and gracious leave in peace?
The choice is yours.
Oh and, the long standing liberal option of staying in the church and anointing yourselves as your own little “magisterium” by actively trying to undermine and subvert the Catholic Church’s timeless Moral Doctrines … is over.
So you decide.
And as you’re mulling it over, here’s a little scriptural guidance to help you along in the popular mode of “What would Jesus do”?
Good news!
Pope Francis continues the “polarizing” and “hateful” theme of Pope Benedict!
In other words: the Papacy is still Catholic!
This is a consistent continuation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s last homily:
Now I know this is heartbreaking to all the liberal “katholics” out there who … by golly … just feel that the archaic crusty ole outdated Roman Catholic Church just needs to get with the hip new meterosexual modern times and embrace the shallow feel-good moral relativism of the Oprah generation. And as such, should never ever ever hurt anyone’s precious feelings. Because you know, Christ was really really tolerant and non-judgmental and really just wanted everyone to get along and sing ‘Kumbaya’ as we ignore our biological design and express our “love” by openly shagging each others bodily orifices with all the reckless abandon of a pack of hyenas in the heated hormone induced frenzy of mating season. Or something…
Well, that ain’t gonna happen folks. So shut up, sit down, grow up, and come to a decision:
Are you finally going to choose an allegiance to the Church’s unchangeable Moral Doctrines, or at least keep your objections to yourselves as you openly obey it’s guidance?
Or are you going to be respectfully honest with the Church (and yourselves) and gracious leave in peace?
The choice is yours.
Oh and, the long standing liberal option of staying in the church and anointing yourselves as your own little “magisterium” by actively trying to undermine and subvert the Catholic Church’s timeless Moral Doctrines … is over.
So you decide.
And as you’re mulling it over, here’s a little scriptural guidance to help you along in the popular mode of “What would Jesus do”?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You’re wrong. I never specified anyone in particular. When you said ‘some had claimed Jesus left them and they appointed someone without authority as the Pope,’ I expressed my view of those actions as sacrilegious. I had thought it was understandable. I don’t see anyone else questioning it anyways.You accused me of being sacrilegious.
You called me sacrilegious. That was uncharitable.
And how can one be “apolitical” and still take umbrage over a political statement?
Stop making me the topic.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
I never said anyone “claimed” anything. I said they implied as much with their actions.You’re wrong. I never specified anyone in particular. When you said ‘some had claimed Jesus left them and they appointed someone without authority as the Pope,’ I expressed my view of those actions as sacrilegious. I had thought it was understandable. I don’t see anyone else questioning it anyways.
And since I did not cite any specific reference at your demand, your “sacrilegious” accusations that followed, clearly implicated me.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Well, according to Liberal “catholics” Jesus left the Democrat Party. And its pope is Barack Obama (formerly cardinal Barry Dunham).
-Cor Cordis
I apologize I misunderstood your ‘implied actions.’ When you said ‘according to…’ I assumed it was something you could provide a source for.
One last time, ‘if there really were liberal Catholics that stated Jesus left the democrat party and professed the president as their Pope, it would be sacrilegious in my honest opinion.’ I hope that completely clarifies what I thought was sacrilegious.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Not quite.
After you demanded a citation I responded with:
And it was after my clarification that you clearly implied that my statements were sacrilegious.
That was very uncharitable of you.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I apologize you misunderstood me, and that I cannot clarify to your satisfaction. I have explained it truthfully, and ,again, apologize that you don’t believe me.Not quite.
After you demanded a citation I responded with:
And it was after my clarification that you clearly implied that my statements were sacrilegious.
That was very uncharitable of you.
Now, can we go back to the topic of the thread? I am not the topic.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
I apologize for not reaching a significant level of simplification of the timeline of the events to reach your comprehension.
I forgive you for accusing me.
And I forgive you for making me the topic on this thread.
Peace be with you.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I did not accuse you, and I did not make you the topic of the thread. I am quite comfortable with people reading through.I apologize for not reaching a significant level of simplification of the timeline of the events to reach your comprehension.
I forgive you for accusing me.
And I forgive you for making me the topic on this thread.
Peace be with you.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
You demanded a citation.
After your demand I responded with:
And it was after my clarification that you clearly implied that my statements were sacrilegious.
I’m sorry you can’t understand that and I’m sorry you reject my forgiveness.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Please stop making this thread about me and return to the topic.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
This thread is becoming uncharitable and wandering
Always post charitably
Discuss the news, not each other
Stay on the topic of the original post
This thread is becoming uncharitable and wandering
Always post charitably
Discuss the news, not each other
Stay on the topic of the original post
H
HansTrappist
Guest
CCC:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that **“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that **“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
From personal experience, I have friends that are ‘gay’ and my position is stated when I make it known that I am Catholic and I am very public about my faith. The same holds true for my friends who are Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Protestant, and even Muslim.
It’s not necessary to humiliate, denigrate, be condescending, or otherwise drop charity, required of all believers. The greatest majority of people recognize love as a very important tenet of Christianity. When we lack love we ostracize, and run a risk of concreting people in their erroneous way because they cannot see Christ, or His Truth, in us. I believe there is a culpability if we cause someone to stay estranged to the faith, especially if we’ve used other than Christian principles, or tactics.
The Church teaches:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
No where does the Church teach us otherwise. We are not Christ, and while our sins may not be of the same gravity, we are still sinners. When Christ stopped the woman from being stoned, He didn’t say, ‘He that is without an equal sin…’ He said, ‘He that is WITHOUT sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.’
While I believe this senator should have maintained his views, I can understand the position in which he finds himself. He loves his son, irregardless of the son’s faults. Prayers for all involved are needed.
We need remember we are of the Catholic Church, and not the Westboro Baptist Church.
It’s not necessary to humiliate, denigrate, be condescending, or otherwise drop charity, required of all believers. The greatest majority of people recognize love as a very important tenet of Christianity. When we lack love we ostracize, and run a risk of concreting people in their erroneous way because they cannot see Christ, or His Truth, in us. I believe there is a culpability if we cause someone to stay estranged to the faith, especially if we’ve used other than Christian principles, or tactics.
The Church teaches:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
No where does the Church teach us otherwise. We are not Christ, and while our sins may not be of the same gravity, we are still sinners. When Christ stopped the woman from being stoned, He didn’t say, ‘He that is without an equal sin…’ He said, ‘He that is WITHOUT sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.’
While I believe this senator should have maintained his views, I can understand the position in which he finds himself. He loves his son, irregardless of the son’s faults. Prayers for all involved are needed.
We need remember we are of the Catholic Church, and not the Westboro Baptist Church.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13)
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
Please note that Paul openly passes harsh judgement on the act of homosexuality.
**“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” - Romans 1:26-28
“Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” - Romans 1:32
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” - 1 Cor 6:9-10**
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
Please note that Paul openly passes harsh judgement on the act of homosexuality.
**“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” - Romans 1:26-28
“Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” - Romans 1:32
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” - 1 Cor 6:9-10**
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Does the Catechism teach us wrongly?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Define that.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I have defined it, with the Gospel message of Christ. You cannot ‘accept with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,’ and discriminate at the same time. A ‘just discrimination’ is not taught in the Catechism. It is not something to be parsed so that we can ignore what we would.
- Status