Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[edwest2]

If only that “over-emphasis” was true. Sad fact is, the Church has been a lion on abortion, and a lamb on “gay” issues, same-sex “marriage” etc. Perhaps the reason for that is the infiltration of homosexually-oriented men in the priesthood (at least 50-60 percent of clergy in the USA are same-sex oriented according to studies, and it’s worse in the seminaries). So no wonder the church would be reticent about dealing with this issue.

Do you have a source for this?

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=40889

Ed

 

[Contarini]

Those “progressive” mosques are not mosques at all-- they’re whore houses.

Which of the following, in your opinion, would make a mosque more of a whore house?

1. Saying that a committed, loving couple of the same sex can legitimately marry each other; or
2. Saying that a man may legitimately have up to four wives and may also have sex with female slaves?

To my mind, the second seems a lot more “whorish” than the first.

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

So you deny that the Church accepted slavery for the majority of its existence?

Accepted it as part of the reality of a fallen world.

Not condoning this–the Church should have condemned it much more unequivocally much sooner.

Edwin

 

[Saint_Frank]

I don’t think the Church is “obsessed” with the homosexual issue. Redefining marriage is a HUGE deal that is very concerning. However, I really do wish that the Church would talk more about Christian persecution in the Middle East and elsewhere, the issue of Islam’s growth in the West along with the growth of materialistic hedonism.

 

[ctb95]

Accepted it as part of the reality of a fallen world.

Not condoning this–the Church should have condemned it much more unequivocally much sooner.

Edwin

It’s worth noting that the Renaissance era popes (who were some of the most immoral popes in history) strongly condemned slavery in the new world hundreds of years before major world powers condemned it.

 

[davidv]

This concept of sin is laughable.

Only to those who have rejected God and His Church.

Our puny human minds compared to the awesome love of God. HA! We think we know what will send a person to hell.

Yes we do know. How? Because Jesus and His Church has described several ways this can happen. Collectively, these are unrepentant mortal sins.

Hell is the result of choosing something in place of God, of rejecting him. How many homosexual persons are rejecting God’s love by committing themselves in a relationship of love and self-sacrifice?

How is a disordered relationship loving and self-sacrificing?

God made these humans who are homosexual, knowing that they would have the inherent biological inclinations they have. To condemn them simply for following the natural consequence of their desire to love someone of the same sex is unjust.

How do you know that their homosexuality is caused by God?

Thankfully, the concept of mortal sin you just described is not the only understanding of morality in the Christian Faith.

What other concepts are there?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The early Church could have condemned slavery and forbid Christians from owning slaves. God could have condemned slavery in Exodus or Leviticus or Deuteronomy and forbid the Jews to own slaves just like He forbid them to do all sort of other things such as wear clothing made from two kind of material or plant fields with two kinds of crops (Leviticus 19:19). But what did God say in Leviticus 25:44-46:

Or how about in the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:21:

But what did Jesus Christ say about slavery?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

God made these humans who are homosexual, knowing that they would have the inherent biological inclinations they have.

God didn’t make homosexuals. He made human beings. Some are male and some are female. Homosexuals do not have their own physiology. They are heterosexual human beings who choose to engage in unnatural sexual relations with others of the same sex. This it totally unpleasing to God.

 

[john_ennis]

This concept of sin is laughable. Our puny human minds compared to the awesome love of God. HA! We think we know what will send a person to hell.

Hell is the result of choosing something in place of God, of rejecting him. How many homosexual persons are rejecting God’s love by committing themselves in a relationship of love and self-sacrifice? God made these humans who are homosexual, knowing that they would have the inherent biological inclinations they have. To condemn them simply for following the natural consequence of their desire to love someone of the same sex is unjust. Thankfully, the concept of mortal sin you just described is not the only understanding of morality in the Christian Faith.

Careful. Do you really believe that following ones biological inclinations to their natural consequences never amounts to a sinful act?

Consider various attractions some people have, by no choice of their own. I mean attractions which if carried out would be terrible crimes.

 

[Thorolfr]

But what did Jesus Christ say about slavery?

Jesus never said a single thing about slavery as far as I know. But slavery is mentioned in other books in the New Testament and there is no doubt from these books that some Christians owned slaves:

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

1 Peter 2:18-21: 18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

As this last passage from Peter says, some have been called by God to be slaves.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, considering that gay “marriage” advocates are trying to teach kindergartners about sex,

I’ve seen this claim before but it’s never been substantiated. The closest thing I’ve found are books in which families of different configurations are shown, including children with same sex couples taking care of them. But there was nothing sexual about the presentation of the material.

Am I midsing something, or is that it?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Jesus never said a single thing about slavery as far as I know. But slavery is mentioned in other books in the New Testament and there is no doubt from these books that some Christians owned slaves:

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

1 Peter 2:18-21: 18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

As this last passage from Peter says, some have been called by God to be slaves.

So , Thoro, does your christian sect accept these scripture passages as the inspired word of God?

 

[bibcat]

Do you have a source for this?

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=40889

Ed

usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/29/catholic-priests-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay
newsweek.com/romes-subculture-gay-priests-rocks-vatican-74397

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaFkxrW5JM

 

[Thorolfr]

So , Thoro, does your christian sect accept these scripture passages as the inspired word of God?

I doubt that ELCA Lutherans would think it’s still OK to own slaves under any circumstances or that anyone is called to be a slave. So we Christians have apparently progressed in the last 2000 years and this shows how most Christians no longer believe now what Christians once believed. Old beliefs, even ones in Scripture, are not necessarily better than new beliefs. But it wasn’t that long ago when Christian slave owners in both the United States and in Latin America owned slaves and thought that these Bible passages sill applied. Some of those owners were Catholics:

The Jesuits of the Maryland province had always relied on plantations to support their ministries. The estates were extensive, totaling 12,000 acres on four large properties in Southern Prince Georges, Charles and St. Mary’s counties, and two smaller estates on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. In 1634, when the Jesuits arrived in Maryland, Lord Baltimore awarded them quasi-estates in which they were permitted to live off the rent of tenant farmers. However, as University Dean Hubert Cloke explains, “The system was totally antiquated and romantic, not related to reality, and they realized they were not going to make any money.” So, the Jesuits turned to indentured servants, English men and women who worked the land for set terms in return for the passage from England to Maryland. But as working conditions improved in England, the supply of indentured servants dropped and the Jesuits once again found a new way to work the land. By the 1680s they relied upon a fully developed slave system.

Compared to other plantation owners in the area, when it came to slavery, “The Jesuits were no better or worse,” according to Cloke. Many of the slaves had been gifts from wealthy Catholic families to sustain the Church. The abolition of slavery was not an issue in the area until the early nineteenth century, when Georgetown’s Jesuits became deeply divided over the issue of slavery.

“But they were not conflicted in the way you would want,” Cloke said. “They were conflicted over what to do about the threat of abolitionists.”

georgetownvoice.com/2007/02/08/the-jesuits-slaves/

 

[Vico]

I’ve seen this claim before but it’s never been substantiated. The closest thing I’ve found are books in which families of different configurations are shown, including children with same sex couples taking care of them. But there was nothing sexual about the presentation of the material.

Am I midsing something, or is that it?

FLE lessons will be taught at public schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, and are preparing to include gender identity in its curriculum, despite objections from parents.
“Starting in kindergarten, students will be taught about same-sex or gay marriage and the parents will not be able to opt out,” Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, told CBN News.
Lafferty said students in 8th grade will be discussing President Bill Clinton’s “activity, along with oral and anal.” Fourth graders will receive instruction about incest, she said.

earhustle411.com/beginning-in-kindergarten-kids-will-be-taught-heterosexual-homosexual-bisexual-and-transgender-lifestyles-video/

 

[Faxero]

FLE lessons will be taught at public schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, and are preparing to include gender identity in its curriculum, despite objections from parents.
“Starting in kindergarten, students will be taught about same-sex or gay marriage and the parents will not be able to opt out,” Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, told CBN News.
Lafferty said students in 8th grade will be discussing President Bill Clinton’s “activity, along with oral and anal.” Fourth graders will receive instruction about incest, she said.

earhustle411.com/beginning-in-kindergarten-kids-will-be-taught-heterosexual-homosexual-bisexual-and-transgender-lifestyles-video/

They are attempting to remove the innocence of children prematurely. They are defying nature.

Teaching minors about such sensitive topics should be discouraged. Let them lose their innocence via experience, not collectively when in school.

Seriously, 4th graders will learn about incest?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

FLE lessons will be taught at public schools in Fairfax County, are preparing to include gender identity in its curriculum,

For grades 7-12. But I’m interested in these claims of children in grade-K being taught about sex. These have repeatedly come up in this forum and in the cases I’ve looked into so far it’s about family configurations.

Starting in kindergarten, students will be taught about same-sex or gay marriage and the parents will not be able to opt out,”

I looked it up. Like before, they are not teaching about sex. What they are teaching is that families come in different configurations. Telling Billy that some of his classmates like Tommy are being raised by Sue and Jenny isn’t telling Billy about sex.
Fairfax County:

The elementary FLE program is taught by the regular classroom teacher. The early elementary program emphasizes the importance of families, distinction between good and bad touch, sources of help, and the importance of friendships.
Human sexuality is first introduced in grade four. In the Human Growth and Development unit, students learn about the male and female reproductive systems. …]

 

[catholic1seeks]

Only to those who have rejected God and His Church.

I have neither rejected God or the Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

God didn’t make homosexuals. He made human beings. Some are male and some are female. Homosexuals do not have their own physiology. They are heterosexual human beings who choose to engage in unnatural sexual relations with others of the same sex. This it totally unpleasing to God.

God made persons.
Homosexuals are persons.
God made homosexuals.

This does not mean he desires people to engage in homosexual activity. But the fact remains he knew in advance that certain people in His great creation would be predominately attracted to members of the same sex.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Careful. Do you really believe that following ones biological inclinations to their natural consequences never amounts to a sinful act?

Consider various attractions some people have, by no choice of their own. I mean attractions which if carried out would be terrible crimes.

No, I do not believe that at all. Someone could be more naturally prone to anger, but that would not fully excuse her murdering someone, for example.

It does seem that natural inclinations due to biology would lessen culpability in any event, as it would affect the freedom of the will.

In any case, the point I was making was in reaction to a certain legalistic notion of mortal sin that haunts some Catholic thinkers: Do this, automatically go to hell. Etc.