What I said was that I had NEVER heard a priest preach to me about homosexuality or any of those others things. I NEVER stated that it does not happen. I have no idea what is preached in any other parish that I have never been to.
LOL. I couldn’t care less where you live. It was just a funny story that came to mind.
I agree with this 100%
Nobody said you did. I didn’t name homosexuality to discuss it; pulled it out as an example because it’s a big issue that everyone (or nearly everyone, apparently) is familiar with. I did name other sins, any of which could be the focus for the point I was trying to make.
Then I apologize. Tones can’t be read online, and it seemed as though you were saying that you didn’t believe it happened because you had never heard it yourself.
Appologies from me also. I just have went back and reread all the posts again and it seems I may have misread myself. I have no idea how we got this far away from the actual subject. Anyways. Glad we chatted. I am sure we will bump into one another again on here.
And again - please read my explanation I am not assuming the he DID do this I am simply stating what the appearance is. Yes, someone may think that my take on sin of omission is narrow minded and yes maybe God will use him as a witness I can see that point. I do believe that God can make good come out of anything. However, my WHOLE POINT to what I said was that if this occurred or if people had a perception that it occurred than it would be a lesson in forgiveness.
I take a partial quote from near the beginning of this thread. I must totally agree with a number of bloggers that pro-choice Catholics who speak in church halls and universities should not be allowed to do so, much less receive Communion. But I wanted clarification from the forum member who posted the above: Are you saying that “Holocaust deniers,” (a term which covers an extremely wide spectrum of ‘denial’) should, like abortion-sympathetic Catholics, be equally censured, as well? Whereas, Catholics who are either soft on abortion, or fully pro-choice, are clearly in the wrong, and act against the teachings of the Church, so-called “Holocaust deniers,” are not under any such dogmatic or doctrinal interdict, nor can they be accused of acting against the Church’s moral laws. Or can they? Please advise.
That’s pretty warped. We are talking about 16 year old child soldiers. Canon law even recognizes 16 as being a minor, a minor can’t even make religious vows for Pete’s sake, and your asking martyrdom of them, the highest honour a Christian can receive. Let’s not forget that at 16 one is not fully developed mentally, physically, they simply are not mature. Yet your saying that these children were obliged by their faith to give their life?
A sixteeen year old can drive, in some countries even drink and marry and have a family within the Church. You are not talking about an American 16 year old of the 21st century. You are talking about a European 16 year old of the 1930’s. Let’s put this in perspective. I wonder if this hypothetical situation were given to you about someone of a different faith if you would be so lenient or take such a defensive attitude. And by the way - why don’t you look at the age of many of our Saints. My own patron Saint was martyred in her teens. However, these are opinions on ideals and unless one of us was put in the situation we don’t know what we would do. Yes, our Lord is a forgiving Lord. Just as we should be which WAS MY POINT that you all seem to be missing.
I’m still trying to understand this issue…So the SSPX Bishops and other clergy are starting the process of reconciling with the Church, but are not formally able to administer the sacraments? So they are still priests and bishops, but are in a state where they can’t act as priests and bishops? Do I have that right?
Exactly!!! Thank you.
but none of those views have anything to do with excommunication. being a whacko conspiracy theorist isn’t an excommunicable offense that i know of.
If you read my three previous posts on this issue, you’ll see that I realize having “whacko” views does not necessarily mean one should be excommunicated or that I think Williamson’s excommunication should not have been lifted. My point in listing these “whacko” views that Williamson seems to have, is to underscore that, according to sources within the Vatican, the Holy Father did not seek advice from his closest advisors on lifting the excommunication and probably, therefore, was not intending to send a message to the Church other than one of mercy and forgiveness. If he had known these views (and presumably his advisors would have informed him of them), then I think the Pope would have found a more oppotune moment to lift the excommunication, perhaps after his trip to Jerusalem in May, and could have explained the situation to the Jewish community and prepared it for what is an obvious shock to Christian - Jewish dialog. Should the Pope be concerned about the opinions and feelings of the Jewish community and take them into account in making his decisions? Many on this thread would think he should not since the entire matter seems to be an internal affair of the Church. I disagree with this view and think the Church should always be aware of and sensitive to the feelings of those from other faiths, at least to the point that it is willing to explain its decisions and clarify its actions. This doesn’t mean that the Church follows the dictates of other faiths, but it does mean it takes its relationships with other faiths seriously enough to weigh the consequences of its decisions.
, sorry was I a bit defensive. 
