San Diego bishop calls for a practical ‘apology’ to L.G.B.T. Catholics

[Teelynn]

There’s no shortage of Catholics that aren’t shy about saying that they will destroy the family and are damaging our society with their marriages. Are all priests welcoming of gay people? They tend to get fired from Catholic schools. You have people like the Lepanto Institute on a witch hunt to expose all the gay people working for Catholic orgs. That’s what persecution looks like.

And…why are they ‘tending to get fired’ from Catholic Schools’? Is it because they have a ‘gay orientation’? I’ve not heard of it, if the only reason for them getting fired is that they have a ‘gay orientation’. What I do hear and read is that they are ‘getting married’ to their gay partner. Or…they are living with their ‘significant other’. Both of these are totally in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, unless you’re reading something into the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I’m not. If a Catholic School is going to actually teach the Catholic faith, don’t you think this is sending a mixed message to kids? “The Catholic faith teaches that gay orientation is not a sin, but active gay relationships is an intrinsic disorder totally opposed to Catholic teaching, so we are going to condone this ‘gay marriage’ of your teachers and welcome their lifestyle to ‘show’ you it should be accepted as something that’s really ok.” This is what I call teaching ‘subjective truth’, Not anything close to ‘objective truth’ which seems to be thrown out the window by many of our so called ‘Catholic organizations’, and even some of our Catholic clergy.

 

[zz912]

The Catechism, the Dogmatic Constitution and the Pope are all crystal clear. The normative path to salvation is Christian baptism, but the unbaptized, and even atheists, can be saved. That is the Church’s actual teaching. Again, you are free to dissent from this teaching, but let’s not pretend that it is unclear or optional.

You are not presenting the full teaching of the Church. Those who are unbaptized, IF they are saved, they are saved THROUGH the Church, through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. So even those who have not received water baptism, IF they are saved, DO receive baptism.

So baptism IS necessary for salvation, and is necessary to become an adopted child of God.

 

[JimG]

You are not presenting the full teaching of the Church. Those who are unbaptized, IF they are saved, they are saved THROUGH the Church, through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. So even those who have not received water baptism, IF they are saved, DO receive baptism.

So baptism IS necessary for salvation, and is necessary to become an adopted child of God.

I agree with this. Current theological thought expands the idea of baptism of desire, applying it to those who would desire baptism if they knew of its necessity. But the prior doctrine as to the necessity of baptism remains intact, as far as I can see. The Church does not, I think, teach universal salvation.

 

[TMC]

You are not presenting the full teaching of the Church. Those who are unbaptized, IF they are saved, they are saved THROUGH the Church, through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. So even those who have not received water baptism, IF they are saved, DO receive baptism.

So baptism IS necessary for salvation, and is necessary to become an adopted child of God.

I disagree that I am misrepresenting anything. But I do agree that the Church teaches that all are saved through the Church. But, as I said, the Church itself does not purport to fully understand this mystical mechanism. They are saved through the Church, but not necessarily as formally part of the Church. In other words, they can be saved through the Church without ever joining the Church. We refer to this as having received a “Baptism of Desire,” because we believe that those people would have sought or desired baptism, had they understood that baptism was required. So they get a mystical or spiritual baptism, but do no necessarily receive a baptism of either water or blood.

But regardless of their particular situation in life, all people, saved or not, Christian or not, justified or not, are properly referred to as “Children of God.”

 

[TMC]

I agree with this. Current theological thought expands the idea of baptism of desire, applying it to those who would desire baptism if they knew of its necessity. But the prior doctrine as to the necessity of baptism remains intact, as far as I can see. The Church does not, I think, teach universal salvation.

I agree, except to say that the Church does not deny the possibility of universal salvation. The Church requires belief in Hell, but allows the belief that Hell will be empty. Some of the early Church fathers taught universal salvation, and some modern theologians hold to it. I would describe universal salvation as neither heretical nor mainstream.

 

[irenaeus1]

I agree, except to say that the Church does not deny the possibility of universal salvation. The Church requires belief in Hell, but allows the belief that Hell will be empty. Some of the early Church fathers taught universal salvation, and some modern theologians hold to it. I would describe universal salvation as neither heretical nor mainstream.

I believe that the only early Church father that taught universal salvation was Origen, and his position was later condemned by the Church. Also, I’ve heard some propose the Hell may be empty (of human beings), but it seems that Jude 6-7 would indicate otherwise.

 

[JosieN]

I agree, except to say that the Church does not deny the possibility of universal salvation. The Church requires belief in Hell, but allows the belief that Hell will be empty. Some of the early Church fathers taught universal salvation, and some modern theologians hold to it. I would describe universal salvation as neither heretical nor mainstream.

I watched a video on the French Revolution. The revolutionists took power. They accused a group of nuns of having hidden weapons (they did not). They sentenced them all to death. They went up singing with joy for they knew they were to meet Jesus and obtain their salvation, Some were only 24 years old. These cruel and heartless people, laid them on long boards and savagely chopped off their heads. I believe that the nuns were praying and offered this sacrifice to God for souls.

If a person (like the nuns) prayed for the revolutionists conversion, then yes maybe their souls will be saved, or if sacrifices are made for them, they may be saved, but they must accept Jesus Christ and His teachings first. This is why the Blood of Christ saves us, His sacrifice and our faith, our baptism, our love for Him all make it possible for our souls to be saved and enter heaven, but we also must also obey His commandments. Why do we pray and make sacrifices for souls if all is well, and there is universal salvation for everyone anyway? Does it make any sense to you?

 

[TMC]

I believe that the only early Church father that taught universal salvation was Origen, and his position was later condemned by the Church. Also, I’ve heard some propose the Hell may be empty (of human beings), but it seems that Jude 6-7 would indicate otherwise.

Origen is certainly the best known, but I seem to recall there were others. I may be wrong, though, and don’t have the resources sitting right here to look it up. Certainly it has been a minority position for most or all of Church history.

 

[TMC]

I watched a video on the French Revolution. The revolutionists took power. They accused a group of nuns of having hidden weapons (they did not). They sentenced them all to death. They went up singing with joy for they knew they were to meet Jesus and obtain their salvation, Some were only 24 years old. These cruel and heartless people, laid them on long boards and savagely chopped off their heads. I believe that the nuns were praying and offered this sacrifice to God for souls.

If a person (like the nuns) prayed for the revolutionists conversion, then yes maybe their souls will be saved, or if sacrifices are made for them, they may be saved, but they must accept Jesus Christ and His teachings first. This is why the Blood of Christ saves us, His sacrifice and our faith, our baptism, our love for Him all make it possible for our souls to be saved and enter heaven, but we also must also obey His commandments. Why do we pray and make sacrifices for souls if all is well, and there is universal salvation for everyone anyway? Does it make any sense to you?

I understand that this is your belief, but it is not Church teaching. The Church teaches that accepting Christ is the best and the normative path to salvation, but salvation is possible for those that do not.

Yes, it does make sense to me. We love and praise God because He is praiseworthy. If the only reason that one praises God is to get paid for doing so (in form of heaven), that is a pretty mercantile view of religion. We follow Christ because it is the right thing to do. If others do not follow Christ, but still get rewarded, why should I care? This is precisely the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. We should do what is right, regardless of whether we think that will get us the highest return on investment, and without being jealous of others.

 

[JosieN]

I understand that this is your belief, but it is not Church teaching. The Church teaches that accepting Christ is the best and the normative path to salvation, but salvation is possible for those that do not.

Yes, it does make sense to me. We love and praise God because He is praiseworthy. If the only reason that one praises God is to get paid for doing so (in form of heaven), that is a pretty mercantile view of religion. We follow Christ because it is the right thing to do. If others do not follow Christ, but still get rewarded, why should I care? This is precisely the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. We should do what is right, regardless of whether we think that will get us the highest return on investment, and without being jealous of others.

There is only one truth, not many different truths. I believe we follow Jesus because He is the Son of God and His sacrifice brings us salvation. I could believe in any religion if all I wanted from it was to believe I was doing the right thing. I believe that Buddhism preaches the same thing.

 

[TMC]

There is only one truth, not many different truths. I believe we follow Jesus because He is the Son of God and His sacrifice brings us salvation. I could believe in any religion if all I wanted from it was to believe I was doing the right thing. I believe that Buddhism preaches the same thing.

I am a bit confused by your statement and how you think it contradicts mine. There is only one Truth. We seek it. The Church guides us in that search.

I am also confused by your comments about believing in any religion. I assume, like most religious seekers, that you believe in the religion that you believe is closest to the Truth. Why would you do otherwise? The point of religion is to seek Truth, and to live a good and proper life. That is why we follow Jesus.

Some people of good faith do not believe in Jesus. Perhaps they were raised in other faiths and therefore believe those faiths. But for whatever reason, they do not know or understand Christ. It appears that you are angry or disappointed that those people could nonetheless end up in heaven. Why does the thought of those people being saved disturb you? The Church teaches that they may be saved. That is a reason to rejoice, not a reason to be disturbed.

There are literally billions of very good people who just happen to have been born Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist. I am much more disturbed by the prospect that God would punish such a person for all eternity simply because that person was born into the wrong family, on the wrong continent, or had a poor theological formation.

 

[JosieN]

I am a bit confused by your statement and how you think it contradicts mine. There is only one Truth. We seek it. The Church guides us in that search.

I am also confused by your comments about believing in any religion. I assume, like most religious seekers, that you believe in the religion that you believe is closest to the Truth. Why would you do otherwise? The point of religion is to seek Truth, and to live a good and proper life. That is why we follow Jesus.

Some people of good faith do not believe in Jesus. Perhaps they were raised in other faiths and therefore believe those faiths. But for whatever reason, they do not know or understand Christ. It appears that you are angry or disappointed that those people could nonetheless end up in heaven. Why does the thought of those people being saved disturb you? The Church teaches that they may be saved. That is a reason to rejoice, not a reason to be disturbed.

There are literally billions of very good people who just happen to have been born Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist. I am much more disturbed by the prospect that God would punish such a person for all eternity simply because that person was born into the wrong family, on the wrong continent, or had a poor theological formation.

I believe in my religion not because it is closet to the truth, but because it is the truth and all other religions are false. Believing in anything else is idolatry, which the first commandment condemns. Also, atheism has always been considered one of the most serious problems of our time by the Church. I do not understand your way of thinking, and it is clear you do not understand mine. I doubt we will ever agree.

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

 

[TMC]

I believe in my religion not because it is closet to the truth, but because it is the truth and all other religions are false. Believing in anything else is idolatry, which the first commandment condemns. Also, atheism has always been considered one of the most serious problems of our time by the Church. I do not understand your way of thinking, and it is clear you do not understand mine. I doubt we will ever agree.

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

OK, so are you saying you are rejecting the Church’s teaching on salvation? Because it seems odd to reject the Church’s teaching and then quote from the Catechism.

 

[JosieN]

OK, so are you saying you are rejecting the Church’s teaching on salvation? Because it seems odd to reject the Church’s teaching and then quote from the Catechism.

I quoted from the Catechism because it teaches against what you say the Church teaches. It seems odd to me that you can’t see how far from the truth you speak. Salvation for all religions without conversion to the one true religion is not possible. It does not make sense, many of these religions have false beliefs and reject the teaching of Jesus Christ, and some like the Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. I think we will not agree and it does not matter what I say, you will repeat that I am rejecting the Churches teaching on salvation. Clearly we do not agree on what that teaching is.

 

[estesbob]

I quoted from the Catechism because it teaches against what you say the Church teaches. It seems odd to me that you can’t see how far from the truth you speak. Salvation for all religions without conversion to the one true religion is not possible. It does not make sense, many of these religions have false beliefs and reject the teaching of Jesus Christ, and some like the Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. I think we will not agree and it does not matter what I say, you will repeat that I am rejecting the Churches teaching on salvation. Clearly we do not agree on what that teaching is.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."33

 

[TMC]

I quoted from the Catechism because it teaches against what you say the Church teaches. It seems odd to me that you can’t see how far from the truth you speak. Salvation for all religions without conversion to the one true religion is not possible. It does not make sense, many of these religions have false beliefs and reject the teaching of Jesus Christ, and some like the Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. I think we will not agree and it does not matter what I say, you will repeat that I am rejecting the Churches teaching on salvation. Clearly we do not agree on what that teaching is.

I have quoted directly from the Dogmatic Constitution, the Catechism and from the Pope. If you disagree with me as to what the Church teaches, you must also disagree with Pope Francis, and frankly at least the last six Popes. I agree with do not agree. I could understand if your position was merely that you disagree with the Church. I cannot understand how you could say you have a better grasp on Church teaching than a handful of Popes.

 

[JosieN]

I have quoted directly from the Dogmatic Constitution, the Catechism and from the Pope. If you disagree with me as to what the Church teaches, you must also disagree with Pope Francis, and frankly at least the last six Popes. I agree with do not agree. I could understand if your position was merely that you disagree with the Church. I cannot understand how you could say you have a better grasp on Church teaching than a handful of Popes.

I did not say I had a better grasp on anything, I said I believe in the one true God, and in His Son Jesus Christ who brings us salvation. Anyone who knows this and rejects it and is not ignorant will not be saved. That includes other religions who have knowledge of the Gospel but chose to believe in false teachings. If they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. Can we agree on that?

 

[TMC]

I did not say I had a better grasp on anything, I said I believe in the one true God, and in His Son Jesus Christ who brings us salvation. Anyone who knows this and rejects it and is not ignorant will not be saved. That includes other religions who have knowledge of the Gospel but chose to believe in false teachings. If they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. Can we agree on that?

The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.

 

[JosieN]

The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.

I am glad we agree on something.

 

[TMC]

I am glad we agree on something.

Me too!