Always at war with homosexuals

[Benedictus]

Homosexualism--is that a new noun?  Saying that" 'homosexualism' is anathema to Christian civilization" is a pretty sweeping statement.  There are many Protestant and Anglican churches which now bless and marry same sex couples.  They--the churches--are widely viewed as Christian.  There are countries overwhelmingly Catholic, such as Ireland, Spain, and Belgium (well, northern Belgium) which have main same-sex marriage legal.

No one says that any church, any denomination, any collection of people holding religious services, has to marry or bless any same-sex union, or accept openly gay persons as members. The issue is one for civil unions only.

To be openly homophopic is not acceptable in today's society, outside of Uganda.  It's equated with racism. 

One can certainly post one's opinions on Phat, on the Debate phorum or perhaps Open Mic,  but I think that posting homophopic opinions as a postulant of an ancient and much-respected religious order, does not reflect well on the person, or possibly his supervisors.

I think you'll find it's not accepted in far more places than Uganda. Overt violence and discrimination isn't good, obviously, but I'm sure you know what the Catholic position on homosexuality is? I think debate and personal opinion is OK. But to suggest that the Catholic church would decry a person who doesn't support homosexuality is a bit warped.

The opinions of a country, majority or culture is irrelevant as such things come and go. Catholic Italy supported Mussolini. Spain and Portugal had similar secular political regimes. Does that mean the church has to endorse fascism or whatever political idea because it has taken hold? Nope

In terms of protestant churches -  the majority don't endorse homosexuality. Such views are mostly held by particular church denominations in the US and parts of Europe. That pattern doesn't necessarily translate outside those provinces and there are always factions who dissent within them. Denominations with liberal  leaders in charge are also usually always small and or in decline and they aren't where the future of the church will be.

I know of the situation, at least more from experience, in the US, Ireland and the UK. The Anglican church, as an example, has had a liberal leadership for decades in those particular countries. They relied on the numbers of liberal parishes and clergy to block vote. But all the decline in those Anglican churches is among the liberal and broad factions, resulting in clergy retiring and church closures. This can be contrasted with the evangelical wing that are growing every single year, mostly with young families. They are far more orthodox and are pushing, and will gain, more influence as the years go on at the top levels of those churches.They already got it into law that state churches cannot be used for same sex marriages in the UK. I imagine the denomination trend will be the same in the US as well, although maybe at a slower rate. If Islam grows more in the US, as it does in Europe, they will also not welcome or wish to keep liberal state policies on many moral issues.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Benedictus

[Ice_nine]

Ah, 'Wait until you have a...'. The typical subjectivist response when faced with moral judgments. 

 

No. What you said is not a moral judgment but conjecture based on the things you've heard about how boys become gay. You say it's because the father is weak or ineffective somehow so if you have a gay son then by your own conjecture it would pretty much be your fault.

While there may be some truth to what you said, and while you may have heard some anecdotes that buttress your opinion, there's no logical reason to make the leap that "homosexuality is often the result" of a crappy father.

[Catlick]

There are countries overwhelmingly Catholic, such as Ireland, Spain, and Belgium (well, northern Belgium) which have main same-sex marriage legal.

 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been to an average Sunday Mass in northern Belgium? I have. Of all people below 50 only a few percent attends Mass. Of all these Masses all but a few percent are outright heretical, in content if not form. Believe me, it's even worse than the average Sunday Mass in the U.S. 

Newspapers, schools, civil society associations, even sport clubs which were once full of the Catholic spirit, have literally turned against the Faith, propagating homosexualism at every opportunity and spreading outright lies on what the Church has always taught on science, marriage, miracles, etc. etc. If the Faith played any role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, it was negatively, in the sense of 'let us not waste time in removing the last shackles of Catholic control over our sex and family lives.'

It's a case of corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst of all. 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Catlick

[Catlick]

You say it's because the father is weak or ineffective somehow so if you have a gay son then by your own conjecture it would pretty much be your fault.

I have never said that. I speak that a weak father is often a cause. There might be other causes: an exceptional innate disposition, childhood experiences with other men, inferiority complex, etc. 

[Ice_nine]

Right, "often the cause," so it would probably, in terms of statistics, be your fault. I doubt NadeTeTurbe was saying you'd change your mind about homosexuality all of the sudden if you had a gay son, which is what your reply to her (?) was getting at right?

[superblue]

Homosexualism--is that a new noun?  Saying that" 'homosexualism' is anathema to Christian civilization" is a pretty sweeping statement.  There are many Protestant and Anglican churches which now bless and marry same sex couples.  They--the churches--are widely viewed as Christian.  There are countries overwhelmingly Catholic, such as Ireland, Spain, and Belgium (well, northern Belgium) which have main same-sex marriage legal.

No one says that any church, any denomination, any collection of people holding religious services, has to marry or bless any same-sex union, or accept openly gay persons as members. The issue is one for civil unions only.

To be openly homophopic is not acceptable in today's society, outside of Uganda.  It's equated with racism. 

One can certainly post one's opinions on Phat, on the Debate phorum or perhaps Open Mic,  but I think that posting homophopic opinions as a postulant of an ancient and much-respected religious order, does not reflect well on the person, or possibly his supervisors.

[Yaatee]

When corporations hire these days, they look up a serious applicant's name in the social media. So do admissions officers at competitive colleges and universities. They want to see what the applicant is *really* like.  Many applicants to choice schools, with A averages and high ACT/SAT scores have been turned down after evidence turned up on the social media that the applicant had another side which might not reflect well on themselves or the institution/corporation.

I don't know when/if religious orders are going to do the same thing, but I would be very surprised if men's orders especially aren't looking up their applicants on the social media.  I would keep this in mind when any discerner or applicant who is permitted to the internet posts online. Just sayin'.

[Yaatee]

 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been to an average Sunday Mass in northern Belgium? I have. Of all people below 50 only a few percent attends Mass. Of all these Masses all but a few percent are outright heretical, in content if not form. Believe me, it's even worse than the average Sunday Mass in the U.S. 

Newspapers, schools, civil society associations, even sport clubs which were once full of the Catholic spirit, have literally turned against the Faith, propagating homosexualism at every opportunity and spreading outright lies on what the Church has always taught on science, marriage, miracles, etc. etc. If the Faith played any role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, it was negatively, in the sense of 'let us not waste time in removing the last shackles of Catholic control over our sex and family lives.'

It's a case of corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst of all. 

How are the masses heretical?  

It is sad that RC has lost its churches and congregations, for many reasons.  But these countries were RC's to lose, through tolerance and hiding of the pedophilia epidemic, among other things.  In the US, RC lost huge numbers of its congregants after Humanae Vitae, in Europe probably as well.  Before this, and when I grew up, the RC church was a monolith.  Some falling away would have happened in any case, but in other churches, ie., the evangelicals and the Mormons, this has not happened.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Yaatee

[Nihil Obstat]

Is it my imagination, or does it seem true that everyone who says "RC" when they mean the Catholic Church typically does not believe anything the Church teaches?

[PhuturePriest]

Is this going to be another never-ending gay debate?

Unfortunately, no. Nothing will ever match the greatness of that thread, and that thread will sadly only live on in our memories. 

Once something is on the internet it's on there forever my foot. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Yaatee]

Is it my imagination, or does it seem true that everyone who says "RC" when they mean the Catholic Church typically does not believe anything the Church teaches?

No. It's just shorthand.  I often write "Catholic Church", but it was late and I was getting ready for bed. I always proofread everything I write, correcting the numerous typos and editing it, so I shortened the reference.

I think that it's closer to say that "RC" is often used by non-Catholics.

 

I just corrected "that". I wrote "tht".  And added a comma behind "Catholic Church". 

[Yaatee]

 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been to an average Sunday Mass in northern Belgium? I have. Of all people below 50 only a few percent attends Mass. Of all these Masses all but a few percent are outright heretical, in content if not form. Believe me, it's even worse than the average Sunday Mass in the U.S. 

Newspapers, schools, civil society associations, even sport clubs which were once full of the Catholic spirit, have literally turned against the Faith, propagating homosexualism at every opportunity and spreading outright lies on what the Church has always taught on science, marriage, miracles, etc. etc. If the Faith played any role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, it was negatively, in the sense of 'let us not waste time in removing the last shackles of Catholic control over our sex and family lives.'

It's a case of corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst of all. 

Catlick,  you have written quite a few sweeping statements here.  Are you heretical yourself, by any chance, such as ...SSPX?   Follower of Lefebvre?

I think that the Church (see? Not "RC") has made itself very clear about its views about science, marriage, miracles "etc.etc".  The Church (again...) is very forward-looking regarding science (ref. "Laudato Si") and its attitude towards miracles is also very clear--you don't have to believe them, especially apparitions, but you much accept that the Church does recognize some miracles, as in those recognized in canonizations. 

It will be interesting to see what the upcoming synod says about blessing same-sex marriages and long-time gay or straight committed relationships of which there are very many  throughout Europe, involving all Catholic (such as Polish Old Catholic, in addition to RC, of course), Anglican, Lutheran and other protestant denominations.  Very interesting.

[Catlick]

Catlick,  you have written quite a few sweeping statements here.  Are you heretical yourself, by any chance, such as ...SSPX?   Follower of Lefebvre?

I think that the Church (see? Not "RC") has made itself very clear about its views about science, marriage, miracles "etc.etc".  The Church (again...) is very forward-looking regarding science (ref. "Laudato Si") and its attitude towards miracles is also very clear--you don't have to believe them, especially apparitions, but you much accept that the Church does recognize some miracles, as in those recognized in canonizations.

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. But to answer your question: I am not a member of SSPX, and would not be even if I were a priest (for your information - you seem uninformed on SSPX - the Society only has priests as members.)

Regarding the Church having made itself clear 'about its views about science' etc., well, yes - I don't contest that. You read things that I have never written. 

The Masonic atheistic elite in Belgium generally knows well what the Church says on things like marriage - quite a lot of its members has received a good education from the Jesuits. They know that the Church will not change her stance on the indissolubility of marriage, that as soon as a Bishop recognizes divorce in his diocese his decision his no authority for the faithful and they cannot follow. They know this because they've received a top Jesuit education, serve as professor of canon law, or are ordained but apostate priests. Believe me, there are plenty such people filling the opinion pages of the Belgian newspapers. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Catlick

[Yaatee]

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. But to answer your question: I am not a member of SSPX, and would not be even if I were a priest (for your information - you seem uninformed on SSPX - the Society only has priests as members.)

Regarding the Church having made itself clear 'about its views about science' etc., well, yes - I don't contest that. You read things that I have never written. 

The Masonic atheistic elite in Belgium generally knows well what the Church says on things like marriage - quite a lot of its members has received a good education from the Jesuits. They know that the Church will not change her stance on the indissolubility of marriage, that as soon as a Bishop recognizes divorce in his diocese his decision his no authority for the faithful and they cannot follow. They know this because they've received a top Jesuit education, serve as professor of canon law, or are ordained but apostate priests. Believe me, there are plenty such people filling the opinion pages of the Belgian newspapers. 

When I asked, "Are you SSPX?" I meant, "Do you follow SSPX?  Do you attend mass only at SSPX churches, etc.?"

I read posts about Belgian priests and one bishop in particular arguing to bless same-sex unions.  I don't know how much farther it goes than that.   As I posted, the synod will have interesting things to say.

I love the way the word "heresy" is thrown around on this forum.  Funny, the pope doesn't appear to use that word very often, not even Benedict, or John Paul.

Another thing interesting about the forum is that people choose to post, often at great length, but say little about themselves.  No background.  I have put plenty on my fact sheet, and  I am quite sure no one could find me (except the moderators, maybe).

What do the Masons have to do with it? I f the priests are "apostate"--another word thrown around the forum--why isn't the Vatican doing something about it?  When Benedict was pope, say.  Or John Paul.  Francis has more important things to do, apparently, like call the synod.

You didn't answer my question.

[Peace]

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. 

Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists.

Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive.