Will the Church now be persecuted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evelynicholson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t be absurd. We’re all sinners; that is not what makes us unfit to be parents. You are avoiding the issue: that a gay couple cannot properly mirror God’s love for the Church, nor replace the missing gender’s needed presence in the child’s life – not to mention the open rebellion against the definition of family.

Look at it this way: the Church does not condone placing children with unmarried, hetorosexual couples who are cohabiting, as far as I know. True inconsistency would be to deny these people the right to be parents but to give that right to gay couples.

With regards to CC of Boston: please cite your source – and remember: that they report no problem does not mean that there are none.

Peace,
Dante
  1. There is no requirement by either the state or Catholic Charities that prospective parents mirror God’s love for the Church.
  2. “In the past two decades, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 with same-sex couples”
    boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
  3. Is it OK for Catholic Charities to place kids in Catholic homes where the parents regulary murder people with abortificants?
 
  1. There is no requirement by either the state or Catholic Charities that prospective parents mirror God’s love for the Church.
  2. “In the past two decades, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 with same-sex couples”
    boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
  3. Is it OK for Catholic Charities to place kids in Catholic homes where the parents regulary murder people with abortificants?
Not sure where the evidence of #1 is, but I doubt that it is true. I have gone through adoption applications. There is intent scrutiny around the intent and possibility of true love.

What is the point of 2 and 3? I hope it is not the juvenile logic of, “well, since this wrong is committed, doesn’t it make similar wrongs OK to do as well?”

Dan
 
Not sure where the evidence of #1 is, but I doubt that it is true. I have gone through adoption applications. There is intent scrutiny around the intent and possibility of true love.

What is the point of 2 and 3? I hope it is not the juvenile logic of, “well, since this wrong is committed, doesn’t it make similar wrongs OK to do as well?”

Dan
  1. Are you telling us the state has a requirement that prospective couples mirror Gods love for the Church. What does that even mean? Do state officials know what God’s love for the Church means?
  2. The point of #2 is that you asked for a cite. I gave it. Is it what you wanted? You asked. Is that juvenile?
  3. The point of #3 is to highlight that the Church is perfectly content to place kids in homes where it considers the parents to be grave sinners, acting against natural law, and murdering people on a regular basis. That’s hardly working on principle.
 
  1. Are you telling us the state has a requirement that prospective couples mirror Gods love for the Church. What does that even mean? Do state officials know what God’s love for the Church means?
  2. The point of #2 is that you asked for a cite. I gave it. Is it what you wanted? You asked. Is that juvenile?
  3. The point of #3 is to highlight that the Church is perfectly content to place kids in homes where it considers the parents to be grave sinners, acting against natural law, and murdering people on a regular basis. That’s hardly working on principle.
Wow. Are you open to the truth?

My experiences have been these. My wife and I have been thoroughly considered for adoption on at least three occasions. In two cases the state was involved, in all three a religious group (not Catholic) was involved. If you were there, with us, in front of the judge, you would have seen that the state does demand adoptive parents sacrifice themselves for their adoptive children. If you were there, when the state inspectors came to our home to be certain that we CARED enough about the child to provide a save environment, you would have seen that the state demands the care that is consistent with Christ’s care for the Church. That is truly the love that Christ has for His Church. We also went through the foster parent licensing here in Missouri. Their intent was what? To best insure that foster parents place the benefits of the foster children before their own. This was stated explicitly. Is this not the same as Christ’s love for His Church?
  1. You were asked to justify a statement you made in an earlier post. Yes, it was, and still is, juvenile reasoning.
  2. Perfectly content? Yeah, right. Are you involved in the process, or just an outsider with malformed opnions and no experience?
Very sincerely, Dan
 
Wow. Are you open to the truth?

My experiences have been these. My wife and I have been thoroughly considered for adoption on at least three occasions. In two cases the state was involved, in all three a religious group (not Catholic) was involved. If you were there, with us, in front of the judge, you would have seen that the state does demand adoptive parents sacrifice themselves for their adoptive children. If you were there, when the state inspectors came to our home to be certain that we CARED enough about the child to provide a save environment, you would have seen that the state demands the care that is consistent with Christ’s care for the Church. That is truly the love that Christ has for His Church. We also went through the foster parent licensing here in Missouri. Their intent was what? To best insure that foster parents place the benefits of the foster children before their own. This was stated explicitly. Is this not the same as Christ’s love for His Church?
  1. You were asked to justify a statement you made in an earlier post. Yes, it was, and still is, juvenile reasoning.
  2. Perfectly content? Yeah, right. Are you involved in the process, or just an outsider with malformed opnions and no experience?
Very sincerely, Dan
  1. The state has no interest in comparing any couple’s love to the love of a spititual being for an organization. Perhaps that is your interpretation of your personal situation, but the state has no idea what god’s love for his church means. Is this phrase found in any state document? Is it in the adoption order? I can surely understand the state looking out for the welfare of the kid, but I have no idea what is meant by god’s love for his church. Neither does the court or Department of Family Services.
  2. You don’t find it interesting that the Catholic Charities of Boston placed kids in gay homes for twenty years? And Catholic Charities of San Francisco did the same? Strange. You asked for a citation backing that up. Is that juvenile? Why? It’s really not reasoning, just an observation about how the Church operates.
  3. One doesn’t have to be an insider to see the Church allows kids to be placed in homes where people are regularly being murdered. It would appear this is considered a loving arrangement. Strange. What futher insoght would someone on the inside provide? Unless, of course, it really isn’t murder… grave sin does seem to be a matter of convenience.
 
  1. You don’t find it interesting that the Catholic Charities of Boston placed kids in gay homes for twenty years? And Catholic Charities of San Francisco did the same? Strange. You asked for a citation backing that up. Is that juvenile? Why? It’s really not reasoning, just an observation about how the Church operates.
  2. One doesn’t have to be an insider to see the Church allows kids to be placed in homes where people are regularly being murdered. It would appear this is considered a loving arrangement. Strange. What futher insoght would someone on the inside provide? Unless, of course, it really isn’t murder… grave sin does seem to be a matter of convenience.
Ah, now there’s a question. Just where in Sodom, the land of the free, do we find enough homes where the parents almost never sin to place all the kids? There are just not enough Joseph-and-Mary’s to go around these days – much the pity. Since we must place the kids somewhere, what should we do? Let’s see. Everybody sins. That’s a given. Some acknowledge their sins and wish to be better. They are basically good Christians. Then, there are the hypocrites who sin with impunity, hide their sin and pretend to be perfect. Finally, there are the sinners who will not even admit that their sin is sin. Instead, they champion their sin and insist that everybody must accept their sin as not being sin. Ideally, we could find thousands of nearly perfect homes for our kids, but we can’t. Barring that, we should at least try to find homes where the adoptive parents are trying to follow the teachings of the Church and therefore admit sin is sin, maybe go to confession, and try again. The trouble is that it is hard (without enlisting the services of the Big Brother/Big Sister Gossip and Innuendo Agency, Inc. to spy for us) to reliably sort these homes from the homes where the parents are hypocrites. There is nothing wrong about our asking lots of questions at the beginning to try to sort things out but the hypocrites are good at telling people what they want to hear. The Big Brother/Big Sister approach is definitely a bad one. What’s a Church to do? It’s not a perfect solution, it’s only a beginning and there will be mistakes and charges of hypocrisy on our part, but at the very least, we should do our best to try to eliminate the homes where the parents are openly pushing sin as being acceptable. We won’t be perfect, even in this, but, as Mother Teresa said, God only asks us to try.
 
Ah, now there’s a question. Just where in Sodom, the land of the free, do we find enough homes where the parents almost never sin to place all the kids? There are just not enough Joseph-and-Mary’s to go around these days – much the pity. Since we must place the kids somewhere, what should we do? Let’s see. Everybody sins. That’s a given. Some acknowledge their sins and wish to be better. They are basically good Christians. Then, there are the hypocrites who sin with impunity, hide their sin and pretend to be perfect. Finally, there are the sinners who will not even admit that their sin is sin. Instead, they champion their sin and insist that everybody must accept their sin as not being sin. Ideally, we could find thousands of nearly perfect homes for our kids, but we can’t. Barring that, we should at least try to find homes where the adoptive parents are trying to follow the teachings of the Church and therefore admit sin is sin, maybe go to confession, and try again. The trouble is that it is hard (without enlisting the services of the Big Brother/Big Sister Gossip and Innuendo Agency, Inc. to spy for us) to reliably sort these homes from the homes where the parents are hypocrites. There is nothing wrong about our asking lots of questions at the beginning to try to sort things out but the hypocrites are good at telling people what they want to hear. The Big Brother/Big Sister approach is definitely a bad one. What’s a Church to do? It’s not a perfect solution, it’s only a beginning and there will be mistakes and charges of hypocrisy on our part, but at the very least, we should do our best to try to eliminate the homes where the parents are openly pushing sin as being acceptable. We won’t be perfect, even in this, but, as Mother Teresa said, God only asks us to try.
What’s the Church to do? It just did it. It quit. Now the kids will be placed in the best homes the other agencies can find. Some will be placed gay homes, just as Catholic Charities did for so long. Nothing changes.
 
Ah, now there’s a question. Just where in Sodom, the land of the free, do we find enough homes where the parents almost never sin to place all the kids? There are just not enough Joseph-and-Mary’s to go around these days – much the pity. Since we must place the kids somewhere, what should we do? Let’s see. Everybody sins. That’s a given. Some acknowledge their sins and wish to be better. They are basically good Christians. Then, there are the hypocrites who sin with impunity, hide their sin and pretend to be perfect. Finally, there are the sinners who will not even admit that their sin is sin. Instead, they champion their sin and insist that everybody must accept their sin as not being sin. Ideally, we could find thousands of nearly perfect homes for our kids, but we can’t. Barring that, we should at least try to find homes where the adoptive parents are trying to follow the teachings of the Church and therefore admit sin is sin, maybe go to confession, and try again. The trouble is that it is hard (without enlisting the services of the Big Brother/Big Sister Gossip and Innuendo Agency, Inc. to spy for us) to reliably sort these homes from the homes where the parents are hypocrites. There is nothing wrong about our asking lots of questions at the beginning to try to sort things out but the hypocrites are good at telling people what they want to hear. The Big Brother/Big Sister approach is definitely a bad one. What’s a Church to do? It’s not a perfect solution, it’s only a beginning and there will be mistakes and charges of hypocrisy on our part, but at the very least, we should do our best to try to eliminate the homes where the parents are openly pushing sin as being acceptable. We won’t be perfect, even in this, but, as Mother Teresa said, God only asks us to try.
Hi Diddi,

I agree with everything you say there. We must all try and stick to the teaching of the Church as best we can. The crux of the problem over homosexual activity is the denial, by people engaged in homosexuality, that it is sinful and against the moral teaching of the Church. To place a child into an environment where a sinful activity is taken as normal must influence the child.
The point of concern about same sex couples is precisely that they are a couple. They offer, in day to day living, a partnership in parenting that lacks the complementarity of male and female. They also offer to the child a very particular model of adult sexuality, which will be deeply formative.
I see one of the posts askes for evidence of persecusion. Here in the Uk there are plent of examples. A recent one was of a well know author, who took part in a phone-in programme of BBC 5 Live. The topic was gay adoption. The author expressed reservations about gay couples being allowed to adopt. An hour later the police called at her home and said she had been reported for making a homophobic statement. They gave her a caution warning her against making any further statements of that nature.
If that isn’t persecution, I don’t know what is!
 
I see one of the posts askes for evidence of persecusion. Here in the Uk there are plent of examples. A recent one was of a well know author, who took part in a phone-in programme of BBC 5 Live. The topic was gay adoption. The author expressed reservations about gay couples being allowed to adopt. An hour later the police called at her home and said she had been reported for making a homophobic statement. They gave her a caution warning her against making any further statements of that nature.
Actually, an allegation had been made that there had been a “homophobic incident” which the police investigated (which they’re bound to do) and the matter dropped.

[That’s what the Daily Telegraph said, anyway, and they’re not exactly campaigners for a ‘gay agenda’.]

Unpleasant it may have been but “persecution”?
 
Unpleasant it may have been but “persecution”?
persecute vt 1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; *specif : *to cause to suffer because of belief 2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

persecution n 1: the act or practice of persecuting esp., those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook 2: the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed

From Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Yep. Sounds like it makes the grade to me.

The word “persecution” has a much broader meaning than most people realize and, contrary to popular opinion, not all persecution is bad. Bad beliefs should be persecuted so that they become less popular! For example, any belief that it’s ok to batter one’s spouse should face persistent, stiff, but moral persecution. Another bad belief that should be persecuted is the oft-stated hypocrisy that all beliefs are just personal opinions and that no one should impose their opinion on others.

The recent trouble for the Church began with a vocal minority who are promoting homosexual equality by promulgating the idea that the Church’s position on homosexuality is a bad belief. Many of these people are willing to harass (persecute) any person (or institution) that holds the belief that homosexual sex is immoral.

The assault began in part with the misappropriation of the term “homophobia”, both within and outside the medical community, to harass and silence anyone who dared to oppose the agenda of mainstreaming homosexual activity. One must remember that to be a true phobia, a fear or aversion must be both unreasonable and adversely compromise the life of the person who holds the fear or aversion. A fear of heights is normal and not a phobia, nor is a repulsion towards the looks and smell of emesis. Both of these emotions are reasonable in that they are protective and do not constitute a phobia unless they become unreasonable and start to (in some way) cripple the person who feels them. Likewise, sensing the wrongness of or being repulsed by non-reproductive (i.e., abnormal) sexual activity serves to protect society and the individual (from disease and abuse) and is not a phobia unless the person’s fear is both unreasonable and adversely compromises their life. A person who is afraid to come outdoors because “the homosexuals are going to get” him has homophobia (unless he finds himself in Lot’s position where his fear would be crippling, but is still reasonable). A person who merely makes the statement that he thinks homosexual activity is repulsive is not homophobic. That’s a healthy position if it is not taken to the extreme. True homophobia is rare. Denouncing people who oppose homosexual activity by using a false allegation in a derogatory way is persecution.

The early Christians were persecuted in Rome because many of their persecutors felt that the Christian cult was promoting atheism, cannibalism, incest, and espousing the overthrow of the government. In other words, these persecutors believed Christianity was a bad belief system. The persecution was severe.

So far, the modern persecution of the Church, because of its stand against the acceptance of homosexual behavior, has not been severe, but it is escalating. The Church’s cause has been severely compromised by the immoral lifestyles of heterosexuals (both outside and within the Christian community) who espouse non-reproductive (i.e., abnormal and immoral) sexual activity both inside and out of marriage for themselves. We must expect the cause of sexual morality to be persecuted in an immoral society.
 
The word “persecution” has a much broader meaning than most people realize and, contrary to popular opinion, not all persecution is bad. Bad beliefs should be persecuted so that they become less popular! For example, any belief that it’s ok to batter one’s spouse should face persistent, stiff, but moral persecution. Another bad belief that should be persecuted is the oft-stated hypocrisy that all beliefs are just personal opinions and that no one should impose their opinion on others.
I’ve never heard of good persecution before but I guess that’s because we always imagine persecution from the point of view of the persecuted. Nobody likes to be persecuted even if they are being persecuted for believing in something that is truly evil.

My guess is that nobody believes they are persecuting somebody because they think they are only opposing wrong, while everbody whose point of view is opposed thinks they are being persecuted because they think they are in the right.
 
I’ve never heard of good persecution before but I guess that’s because we always imagine persecution from the point of view of the persecuted. Nobody likes to be persecuted even if they are being persecuted for believing in something that is truly evil.

My guess is that nobody believes they are persecuting somebody because they think they are only opposing wrong, while everbody whose point of view is opposed thinks they are being persecuted because they think they are in the right.
You’re very perceptive.

Words evolve and take on many meanings. The word “persecute: was derived from the Latin word persequi meaning “to pursue.” The earliest known occurrence in literature is 1477. The earliest definition I can find, from 1482, was “to pursue with malignancy or injurious action; esp. to oppress for holding a heretical opinion or belief.” A 1585 definition softens this to “to harass, worry; to importune,” and the same author defines “persecution” as “persistent injury or annoyance from any source.” In a 1697 source, “persecute” was defined as “to pursue, hunt, drive (with missiles or with attempts to catch, kill, or injure).” Here’s a very soft definition from 1647, “to pursue or prosecute an aim; to investigate; to make a quest.” More modern definitions (1947) include, “treat badly; do harm to again and again; oppress” and “to punish for religious reasons” and “to annoy; as, persecuted by silly questions.”

Today, because of the multitude of meanings, persecution can be both good and bad. Some say this is a degradation of meaning and rightfully fear the same is occurring with the word “marriage” as it already has with the term “family”. When a word takes on too much semantic baggage, it ceases to effectively convey its original meaning. Purists are then forced to apply adjectives such as “traditional family” or “traditional marriage” as a restorative to prevent equivocation. If you wish to convey more of the original negative meaning to the terms “persecute” and “persecution” you can refer to “unjust persecution” for when the persecution is not deserved, “unfair persecution” for when the persecution is unevenly applied and “harshly persecuted” for when the persecution is too severe.
 
If everything is ‘persecution’, nothing is.

So the answer to “Will the Church now be persecuted?” is, “Of course, because the slightest discomforting is ‘persecution’ but, obviously, it’s nothing vaguely to concern yourself with.”
 
If everything is ‘persecution’, nothing is.

So the answer to “Will the Church now be persecuted?” is, “Of course, because the slightest discomforting is ‘persecution’ but, obviously, it’s nothing vaguely to concern yourself with.”
I don’t agree with the last part. The current ‘persecution’ of the Church is something that is very serious, and should concern us all very much. Attempts are being made to limit the speaking of truth. If you can’t speak the truth, how can you teach and evangelize? That is the very mission of the Church in this world. The Church as been silenced by the state before, it will happen again.

Dan
 
I don’t agree with the last part. The current ‘persecution’ of the Church is something that is very serious, and should concern us all very much. Attempts are being made to limit the speaking of truth. If you can’t speak the truth, how can you teach and evangelize? That is the very mission of the Church in this world. The Church as been silenced by the state before, it will happen again.

Dan
Where is there legislation that says that the Church can’t say what it wants?

Where is there legislation where saying “Gays are bad people” (or whatever) isn’t ok but saying “Catholics are bad people” (or whatever) is ok?

Not getting your own way doesn’t count as persecution - or does it?
 
Whilst I acknowledge that in the past homosexuals have been appallingly and cruelly discriminated against by individuals, (which is expressly forbidden in the catechism, as they too have their art to play and gifts to give) and can be forgiven after all, I am concerned that the only option will be to close the doors for adoptions, unless we go private and fund the whole thing ourselves, which is another option.
Then I take it you are accepting public money right now? That’s the problem if you are. The state doesn’t give you something for nothing. On the other hand, if the state were to disallow your going private, then indeed the Church is being persecuted.
 
Where is there legislation that says that the Church can’t say what it wants?

Where is there legislation where saying “Gays are bad people” (or whatever) isn’t ok but saying “Catholics are bad people” (or whatever) is ok?

Not getting your own way doesn’t count as persecution - or does it?
Before legislation, there must be public sentiment. The public sentiment has begun to brew. When people speak the truth, they are being labelled ‘homophobes’, in an attempt to discredit them and silence them. Laura Schlesinger has felt the persecution for speaking the truth. I would suggest that death threats are true ‘persecution’.

Dan
 
It is inequivocably proven that the best way a child will grow up…is to be raised by both a mother and father in a marriage.

When Christ gets involved in a sacramental marriage, he turns an ordinary marriage into an extraordinary marriage, just like when he changed the water into wine and it was better than the best.
That’s why the church only accepts a marriage between one and one woman, so they can be fruitful and multiply.

Will the church now be pesecuted?
The church will always be persecuted…and blessed are those who are persecuted for my name’s sake for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Adoptive married parents is the next best way for a child to grow up.

That’s why even in cases of divorce, the judicial decision of who gets custody of a biological or adopted child are weighted so heavily. Whatever happens, I know that God is in charge and if we go to him always and at all times, miracles can happen. Children and families can be restored and strengthened. May God bless you
 
Before legislation, there must be public sentiment. The public sentiment has begun to brew. When people speak the truth, they are being labelled ‘homophobes’, in an attempt to discredit them and silence them. Laura Schlesinger has felt the persecution for speaking the truth. I would suggest that death threats are true ‘persecution’.
Dan
Oh, I’m sure that death threats are true ‘persecution’ and I’m equally sure that a lot of gay people there therefore ‘persecuted’.

You know, a lot of people complain when Jewish people call them anti-Semitic just because they oppose the actions of the State of Israel and they are right to do so - the trouble is that anti-Zionism is also one of the best disguises that a Jew-hater can have. I expect that speaking “the truth” about homosexuality is also one of the best disguises that Gay-haters can ‘wear’.

All a bit of a problem, really, isn’t it, hate merchants hiding out amongst ordinary “truth” speakers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top