I Am An Ally

[Guest]

Just now, Josh said:

Why was the picture removed on the post where I said "Sorry I'm not an ally." How was that inappropriate? 

Here was the picture. Maybe it was a glitch and got removed. I think the picture needs to be seen. Look at the little kids in in the background. This is what Catholics and Christians are an ally for? Satan rejoices when you are an ally for this satanic cause.

6 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I think there is some truth in the above. I think that we probably have a sense of very deep shame and rightly so - and are trying to move on and in the trying might make every effort possible to get others to "like us".  Not perhaps so much because one wants to be liked - but rather to witness to the fact that Catholics can be quite likeable people.  The very real mistake can be to cave in and adhere to popular secular opinions in order to attempt to show the face of Catholicism as likeable.  We are not called to be likeable people, we are called to be loving people.........and that begs the question "What is the difference between liking and loving?" and another subject.

"Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them"  (Bob Dylan "Maggie's Farm")

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest

[NadaTeTurbe]

I reported this image because it's innapropriate in a forum where there is minor (and frankly, it's inappropriate for adult too). I understand your anger, but we need to keep this place safe. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

 

The second problem is that Catholics are trying too hard to please people (and not only on the issue of homosexuality).  If a Catholic stands up and says that he/she is against abortion under all circumstances or that he/she refuses to marry someone who is not a virgin, then that Catholic will also get plenty of dirty looks and criticism.  Too many Catholics don’t want to be “bigoted”.  It's time that Catholics took a stand against this judgment free nonsense.

You've opened up a couple of "Pandora's Boxes" here. I'll  address your second comment first. To refrain from judging others is not nonsense. Here are the Pope's remarks from this morning's Mass (Monday the 20th) about leaving judgement to God. http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-look-in-the-mirror-before-judging-oth  As I understand it, Catholics are called upon to support the Pope. Certainly here on Phatmass, posters who call themselves Catholic are called upon to be respectful of the Pope in their remarks. Although my opinions likely mean nothing to you since I am not Catholic, I thought the Pope's remarks were "spot on." I felt as if the Pope had been reading Phatmass the past few days and was sending us a personal message.

Second, where did you get this idea that a good Catholic should refuse to marry someone who is not a virgin? In the same sentence, you gave as an example that a good Catholic should be against abortion in all circumstances, This is an accepted Catholic teaching as far as I know--please correct me if I'm wrong. But, I've never heard of the idea that a Catholic should refuse to marry someone who is not a virgin. 

Yes, the Catholic Church calls upon unmarried couples to refrain from sex until marriage. But, while this means that both members of a Catholic couple who follow this teaching are likely to be virgins at marriage, I don't know of anywhere where it is taught that a Catholic should discriminate against a partner who is not a virgin. Perhaps the partner is a widow or widower. Perhaps the partner is a convert to Catholicism, who has remained celibate after his/her conversion, but was not celibate before. Why should the partner's actions before conversion be held against them (assuming they have gone to confession, etc.)? Heck, Jesus forgave St. Paul for killing Christians before St. Paul's conversion. Are we asked to be less forgiving? I won't even get into circumstances where a person was sexually abused as a child so may no longer be a virgin. We had a "virgin" thread not that long ago about the definition of "virgin" and it's a very complex subject. One subject that came up is that there are MANY non-sexual circumstances under which a woman might no longer have a hymen, but she has never engaged in sexual intercourse. Personally, I would say that that woman is still a virgin, but others might disagree.

Edited June 20, 2016 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[polskieserce]

1 hour ago, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

You've opened up a couple of "Pandora's Boxes" here. I'll  address your second comment first. To refrain from judging others is not nonsense. Here are the Pope's remarks from this morning's Mass (Monday the 20th) about leaving judgement to God. http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-look-in-the-mirror-before-judging-oth  As I understand it, Catholics are called upon to support the Pope. Certainly here on Phatmass, posters who call themselves Catholic are called upon to be respectful of the Pope in their remarks. Although my opinions likely mean nothing to you since I am not Catholic, I thought the Pope's remarks were "spot on." I felt as if the Pope had been reading Phatmass the past few days and was sending us a personal message.

Second, where did you get this idea that a good Catholic should refuse to marry someone who is not a virgin? In the same sentence, you gave as an example that a good Catholic should be against abortion in all circumstances, This is an accepted Catholic teaching as far as I know--please correct me if I'm wrong. But, I've never heard of the idea that a Catholic should refuse to marry someone who is not a virgin. 

Yes, the Catholic Church calls upon unmarried couples to refrain from sex until marriage. But, while this means that both members of a Catholic couple who follow this teaching are likely to be virgins at marriage, I don't know of anywhere where it is taught that a Catholic should discriminate against a partner who is not a virgin. Perhaps the partner is a widow or widower. Perhaps the partner is a convert to Catholicism, who has remained celibate after his/her conversion, but was not celibate before. Why should the partner's actions before conversion be held against them (assuming they have gone to confession, etc.)? Heck, Jesus forgave St. Paul for killing Christians before St. Paul's conversion. Are we asked to be less forgiving? I won't even get into circumstances where a person was sexually abused as a child so may no longer be a virgin. We had a "virgin" thread not that long ago about the definition of "virgin" and it's a very complex subject. One subject that came up is that there are MANY non-sexual circumstances under which a woman might no longer have a hymen, but she has never engaged in sexual intercourse. Personally, I would say that that woman is still a virgin, but others might disagree.

God was the one who determined that living a homosexual lifestyle is evil.  When Catholics voice disapproval for the homosexual movement and distance themselves from it, they are simply repeating God's stance.  The homosexual movement, as well as secular society in general, would like you to believe that simply making a distinction between right and wrong is going against God's will.

I never said a Catholic is obligated to dump/reject someone who isn't a virgin.  I simply said that if a Catholic does that, then he/she will get plenty of negative responses for it.  The only reason I made that comparison to opposing abortion under every circumstance is that both of those issues will cause sparks to fly.  When I first joined this forum 3 years ago, I started a thread on this exact topic because it meant a lot to me.  Finding other Catholic Virgins  I got a lot of criticism over having those kinds of views but 3 years later I feel the same way.  The issues you bring up have already been covered in that thread.  Let's not hijack OPs thread and just leave it there.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Here was the picture. Maybe it was a glitch and got removed. I think the picture needs to be seen. Look at the little kids in in the background. This is what Catholics and Christians are an ally for? Satan rejoices when you are an ally for this satanic cause.

Josh--I agree with Nada De Turbe that the picture you posted is not appropriate for a Web site visited by minors, and even for adults. To me, at least, it doesn't fit with the guidelines of Phatmass--but that is the decision of dUSt and the Mediators of Meh. Also, the picture was not necessary.

You could simply have described the actions of the people in the picture in scientific terms--that is, "sadomasochism" or "dominance/submission." Similar terms to what would be used in a textbook. I'm still not sure that that discussion belongs here in Open Mic or in the Adult Forum. Unfortunately, I've read posts from minors saying that they check the Adult forum just to see what is going on, so putting a post in the Adult forum may not prevent a minor from reading it. If readers don't understand the "scientific" terms, they can look up their meaning--although I'd be VERY wary of doing that on the Internet. I strongly suspect that the search results would not be "scientific" explanations, but could easily be porno sites.This may be a situation where an "old-fashioned" paper dictionary would serve the purpose better.

I understand the point you were making, but this was probably not the best example to use, since these practices are not limited to homosexuals, but also are practiced by heterosexuals.

I'm not sure that a practicing Catholic can be an "ally" for many of the causes of the homosexual community. However, this does not mean that Catholics should treat homosexuals as less than human, or that Catholic homosexuals are not deserving of sympathy, because to be both a practicing Catholic and a homosexual means practicing celibacy, which is a difficult path. Also, even if a practicing Catholic feels that homosexuality is a sin, that doesn't mean that homosexuals should be gunned down as they were in Orlando, or systematically executed, as they are by ISIS. 

37 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

God was the one who determined that living a homosexual lifestyle is evil.  When Catholics voice disapproval for the homosexual movement and distance themselves from it, they are simply repeating God's stance.  The homosexual movement, as well as secular society in general, would like you to believe that simply making a distinction between right and wrong is going against God's will.

I never said a Catholic is obligated to dump/reject someone who isn't a virgin.  I simply said that if a Catholic does that, then he/she will get plenty of negative responses for it.  The only reason I made that comparison to opposing abortion under every circumstance is that both of those issues will cause sparks to fly.  When I first joined this forum 3 years ago, I started a thread on this exact topic because it meant a lot to me.  Finding other Catholic Virgins  I got a lot of criticism over having those kinds of views but 3 years later I feel the same way.  The issues you bring up have already been covered in that thread.  Let's not hijack OPs thread and just leave it there.

If you personally want to reject non-virgins as marriage partners, that's your decision. Just don't pretend that that is official Church teaching.

Similarly, it is one thing to repeat the Church teaching that living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin, but the Pope has been teaching a lot recently about how Catholics are to find the difficult balance between not supporting sin and yet following Jesus' example of mercy toward sinners.

 

[Guest]

If the picture needs to be taken down then that's fine. I thought it was a glitch and got erased by accident. I didn't see why it shouldn't be posted here. As far as marrying a virgin I think that's a honorable goal. I wouldn't say it's for everyone but I wouldn't be against my child doing it. As long as they didn't judge others who weren't virgins. Chances are marrying a virgin is going to give you way better odds at having a good marriage and a partner who is faithful and doesn't cheat on you.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest

[polskieserce]

1 hour ago, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

If you personally want to reject non-virgins as marriage partners, that's your decision. Just don't pretend that that is official Church teaching.

Similarly, it is one thing to repeat the Church teaching that living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin, but the Pope has been teaching a lot recently about how Catholics are to find the difficult balance between not supporting sin and yet following Jesus' example of mercy toward sinners.

I did not pretend that it was part of Church teaching.  You made that assumption yourself and I already clarified my comparison.  The bottom line is that the Church and its followers are trying to hard to conform to the outside world and avoid conflict.  That's clearly not the route we should be going.  By modern secular standards, the Apostles would be considered raving bigots.  For the most part, homosexuals are treated with incredible compassion (even if they are living an openly gay lifestyle and mocking God).  Sure, a decent number of people will be naturally disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle and avoid contact with them whenever possible. But when was the last time you heard of undercover Sharia operatives arresting and executing homosexuals in the US?

[Ice_nine]

I'm on the mobile so something went funky in the editing phase but it was me who deleted the pic (twice) because I don't think images of sadomasochism is something we want here.

[Guest]

Just now, Ice_nine said:

I'm on the mobile so something went funky in the editing phase but it was me who deleted the pic (twice) because I don't think images of sadomasochism is something we want here.

O you did delete it the first time. My bad on posting it again. Just a thought but if it's that bad you probably shouldn't type the word out. I don't even know for sure what it means but Google is a click away. If the concern is about the younger readers then perhaps you should edit out the word in your above post. Just an idea. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Guest

[PhuturePriest]

5 hours ago, polskieserce said:

I did not pretend that it was part of Church teaching.  You made that assumption yourself and I already clarified my comparison.  The bottom line is that the Church and its followers are trying to hard to conform to the outside world and avoid conflict.  That's clearly not the route we should be going.  By modern secular standards, the Apostles would be considered raving bigots.  For the most part, homosexuals are treated with incredible compassion (even if they are living an openly gay lifestyle and mocking God).  Sure, a decent number of people will be naturally disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle and avoid contact with them whenever possible. But when was the last time you heard of undercover Sharia operatives arresting and executing homosexuals in the US?

Edit: super tired and misread. Carry on.

Edited June 21, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Guest]

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Josh said:

 

 

 

 

Doubtless insults and persecution of all kinds are to be expected and accepted .........and with rejoicing and gladness -  and if not felt, at least in the will.  Strangely and with that surprise that our theology can offer, acts of the will apparently are more important and valuable than feelings; while acts of the will that are felt too on the feeling level is a consolation - and even a possible sign of advancement on the spiritual way (reformation of feeling I think they call it)..............with even countless miles still to travel always no matter how highly mystical or holy one might be apparently.  All very strange to me while I hold it to be true because our theology and Catholic teaching always trumps my feelings and understandings.

"11Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Vatican Bible: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM

[Guest]

The Shame of the US Catholic Bishops: The presence of gay-affirmative ministries from Coast to Coast - Joseph Sciambra

 

Throughout the United States, literally from New York to California, there exists a vast network of gay-affirmative Catholic parishes with LGBTQ ministries. Most of these ministries incorporate the lexicon and symbolism of the modern “gay” rights movement – in particular, the use of the rainbow flag. Nearly all blatantly disregard the most basic and fundamental Catholic teachings on homosexuality; for example, the “Gay and Lesbian Ministry” at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church recently posted on their Facebook page a link to a letter written by a newly “out” Christian singer; the St. Francis “Ministry” highlighted this section of text: “His study of the Scriptures, he says, has led him to believe that the handful of Bible verses that directly address homosexuality do not prohibit the kind of loving, committed gay relationships known to the modern world. ‘There is absolutely no conflict with accepting who I am and following Jesus,’ he said. ‘God wants me to be healthy, authentic, whole, integrated and my truest self.’”

 

Other examples are: the LGBTQ Spirituality group at the St. Anthony Shrine in Boston which offers a course in “qwerty Theology;” the Catholic Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Atlanta that hosts an GLBT “Couples” Pot Luck Social; and the Open Hearts GLBT Support group at Saint Patrick – Saint Anthony Catholic Church in Hartford which is currently reading John J. McNeill’s “Taking a Chance on God;” in that book the openly-gay McNeill stated: “In all cultures and in every period of history, a certain percentage of men and women develop as gays and lesbians. These individuals could be considered as part of God’s creative plan. Their sexual orientation has no necessary connection with sin, sickness, or failure; rather, it is a gift from God to be accepted and lived out with gratitude. God does not despise anything that God has created.”

 

Later in life, McNeill wrote, concerning the relationship of Jesus with the Lazarus family of Bethany: “…that Jesus’ family of choice was possibly a gay family; that Martha and Mary were lesbians and Lazarus was a gay man.”

 

The overall purpose and ultimate objective of these groups is clear: the full inclusion of sexually active homosexuals within the Catholic Church; yet, in a sense, on the local level, through these ministries and with the complicity of gay-approving pastors and priests – they have already done just that. For the most part local ordinaries have been completely unwilling to monitor or correct the wildly divergent, and sometimes perverse, philosophies that have been allowed to run rampant within these groups. To make matters worse, most of these gay affirmative ministries are located in highly-visible urban areas: New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and particularly close to neighborhoods with large “gay” populations. This untenable situation has caused many confused and vulnerable young men and women to earnestly seek out answers within these groups – only to reemerge as confirmed homosexuals.

 

One of the most egregious examples of a so-called “gay” outreach is the “Rainbow Ministry” at St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Boston, in a October 19, 2015 Facebook post the group publicly maligned two Catholic Saints:

 

“Sts. Sergius and Bacchus are ancient Christian martyrs who were tortured to death in Syria because they refused to attend sacrifices in honor of Jupiter. Recent attention to early Greek manuscripts has also revealed that they were openly gay men and that they were erastai or lovers. These manuscripts are found in various libraries in Europe and suggest an earlier Christian acceptance of homosexuality…According to the early manuscripts, Bacchus told Sergius to persevere, that the delights of heaven were greater than any suffering, and that part of their reward would be to be reunited in heaven as lovers.”

 

This scurrilous theory that the two male Saints were actually homosexual lovers has been floating about the toxic environments of “gay” Catholicism for many years. It probably had its genesis with the disproven works of the late-John Boswell who was trying to establish that pseudo-same-sex marriage unions existed in Medieval Europe. Fr. John Harvey responded: “…Boswell speaks of Jesus and John as the most controversial same-sex couple in the Christian tradition, adding his list of ‘paired saints’ – Perpetua and Felicity, Ployeuctos and Nearchos, and Sergius and Bacchus. All descriptions are rife with homoerotic implications, and all are without historical proof.”

 

In a recently published piece for “Spiritual Friendship” author Wesley Hill posted a picture which depicts Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in icon form. In the accompanying article, Hill discusses the topic of “vowed” same-sex friendships with the clear implication that Sts Sergius and Bacchus were one such example. In addition, the Sergius and Bacchus imagery (see altar table below)has been adopted by the Missionaries of the Precious Blood, a religious order with a long history of gay-affirmative ministries, for example – after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, the Precious Blood Fathers proudly announced: “A victory for the gay rights movement happened June 26, 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage. The decision was the culmination of years of litigation and activism. President Obama reacted: ‘It affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts.’ The truth of that statement rang true as people crowded outside of the courthouse chanting, ‘Love has won!’ It really is about love winning over hate and division.” Inexplicably, the Precious Blood Fathers were given pastorship at the already dissident gay parish of Most Holy Redeemer in San Francisco.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

[Guest]