About 200 gays held a Kiss-In along the pope-mobile's path. If you click on the link in the previous sentence, there is an article about it with a great pictures of multiple male couples kissing as the pope passes by. This was on a day that the pope gave a speech about keeping the definition of marriage and family very exclusive. As if one's salvation and Christian status depend on whether someone marries the opposite sex. This does have a familiar ring. Paul's opponents in Galatia and Rome told the Christian communities their that they needed to follow the Torah (Law) to be proper Christians. Paul told them that not only was that definition too exclusionary, it was harmful for the faith. Belief in Jesus Christ, who has liberated us from the bondage of sin is all that matters. I think the pope might need to take a basic scripture class.For whatever reason, Benedict thinks that Spain is a major and "winnable" battleground for the Church to reclaim souls for his Torah-based... I mean straight-based Church. He plans another trip to Spain next year, which will be his third trip to the nation. Benedict does have a lot of wonderful qualities (see prior entries), but this straight-based aspect of his pontificate borders on the heretical. Jesus needs to be the basis of Christianity, not straightness.
A Faithful Catholic
14 comments:
I'm pretty sure St. Paul has some pretty harsh words for homosexuality as well. It's amazing how Modernists like yourself pick and choose what to use.
Of course what amuses people is the church's position on homosexuality when at least 80 percent--some say over 90 percent of the clergy of his church are most probably gay.
Such figures do not bother me in the least. Indeed I would say the RC position on homosexuality looks rather good compared with other churches.
That's hilarious, a Modernist calling the Pope heretical for upholding Traditional Catholic Teaching. That is simply the most ridiculous statement I've read on a Catholic blog in a long time.
Mark,
Care to back up those statistics? I'm willing to bet you cannot.
It is interesting that at the time of Vatican II, the Church added some verbage that said in effect 'and for the mutual enrichment of the marriage partners' to the purpose and end of marriage which to that point had only been 'marriage for the pro-creation of children'. By this statement the Church covered for those marriages that would in fact be childless because of age or physical condition. A significant change to accomodate a reality and for the sake of inclusion. When the nature and etiology of same sex attraction is finally accepted for what it is --a naturally occuring reality and not a choice, I pray that there will be another church statement expansion to accomodate that reality.
At the time of Vatican II the Church added a second purpose to the stated purpose and end of marriage. '...For the mutual enrichment of the marriage partners' was added to the statement of the purpose of marriage which until then had been only 'for the procreation of children'. Thus the Church covered for the reality that some marriages could not accomplish 'for the procreation of children' justification either because of age or physical condition. My prayer is that the Church will again adjust when the nature and etiology of same sex attraction is finally embraced for what it is a naturally occuring reality in the human experience and not a choice or deviation. As the Chuch has adjusted to embrace reality before may She do so again.
Seeing how gay "marriage" runs directly counter to the Natural Law and the clear interpretation of Scripture, you will be waiting for a really long time.
CS, well 80 percent of the abuse cases were priests abusing boys--by the Church's own figures.So you will accept the 80 percent figure? Have you got some data?
Hey anonymous, trying to fool us with the Natural Law argument.Give us some details.Paul 6 gave it away when he said only the church could speak about what the Natural Law means.So church teaching is natural law. Man you're going in a circle. Learn to reason!
Mark,
You are pretty pathetic. Yes, 80% of abuse cases were priests assaulting boys/young men. That does not make 80% of priests gay, unless you are alleging that ALL priests molest children. Who's reasoning is faulty, that's right, yours (as usual).
As for your continued assault on Natural Law, Church Teaching conforms itself to Natural Law because Natural Law pre-existed Church Teaching. It's called causality, but then, that's probably a concept you wouldn't understand.
CS,get back to your reading. Hume, of course, gave the best explanation of "causality." Check it out. Paul 6 clearly said the Church was the final authority on Natural Law.So Natural Law is what the Church says it is. You should know this is 2010 not 1350. Get with it.
I'm more of a Thomist when it comes to causality than Hume. Hume's spontaneous tendency is really quite ridiculous. If you take Hume's view of causality to its logical conclusion, you end up denying the very existence of God. Is that something that you are doing? If so, then there is no more discussion since not only are you not Catholic or Christian, you are an atheist.
Perhaps you should put your pride behind you and accept the Church as opposed to trying to make yourself a God unto yourself. I would read Cicero's argument for the existence of God for starters.
CS, since Hume is considered 'necessary' for the rise of modern science, I assume you want to go back to the 13th century. BTW what does your 'scholasticism'say today about angels on the head of a pin. Certainly by now, using scholastic philosophy, they should have solved that essential question. What's your estimate of the number.
Mark,
I am not doubting the importance of Hume, yet at the same time, one can still be incredibly troubled by his logical end. Or, are you endorsing the sheer barbarity of the 20th Century? What you fail to acknowledge is the incredible role the Church (yes the Catholic Church) played in fostering and encouraging learning and science.
It is possible one can acknowledge the importance of thinkers like Rousseau and others, without ultimately endorsing their worldviews, worldviews that for many of the "enlightened" thinkers of the time, remain antithetical to anything remotely resembling Christianity.
Post a Comment