The Rainbow Sash Movement claims that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has agreed to a “listening session” with them this fall. Just great.
Is this the listening and respect that Cardinal George was advocating? Because all this does is sow confusion and create hope where there should be none. Read their press release: it is the worst hodgepodge of confused Catholic theology. The “sensus fidelium,” they claim, is the bishop “trying to determine the parishioners’ pastoral needs.” No, it’s not. It is the instinctive sensitivity in matters of faith exercised by the whole body of believers whose appreciation and discernment of revelation is guided by the Holy Spirit. (“A Concise Dictionary of Theology,” O’Collins and Farrugia) It is a commonly held understanding of the faith as held by the entire Church, practiced in an unchanging way over the centuries. For example, the doctrine of the Assumption, only formally defined in 1950, was a commonly held belief celebrated by Christians from the beginning of the Church.
There’s nothing wrong with the Cardinal’s listening to those Catholics who are confused and in need of God’s love. The question is what will he say to them! I pray and hope that he is a truly good shepherd, and shows true love to them by, as you say, Dom, calling them to repentance and a holy and less sinful life.
“Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has agreed to a ‘listening session’ with them this fall.” That would be like preaching to the choir, no?
I have no historical data to back up this supposition but I shall make it anyway.
No one has ever been converted with the phrase “Take a hike”.
Without dialogue, there can be no change. There can be no love shown. It is our responsibility to show the love of Christ at every opportunity. If that is the intent of Cardinal McCarrick, he should be supported in his actions
Jaime
Jaime, ever hear of “tough love?’ Or, “shake the dust from your feet and move on?”
We have “dialogues” about everything and everybody in the Church and in liberal society until we simply have no space for decisions and actions. We have been “dialogued” to death during the last forty years.
McCarrick isn’t going to convert or change these pompous asses. We don’t have a strong figure in McCarrick, but a man who fears taking a risk. Furthermore, it’s my good guess that the Rainbow Sash people have been in dialogues for years now…all, of course, justifying their positions.
At this point in Church history, those who call for dialogue are either naive or too young to know that we are drowning in dialogue.
John, you infer that if anyone has issues or questions with church doctrine, they should no longer be considered Catholic. That would be true for Church dogma but not for doctrine. It may be your opinion to but it is not the opinion of the Church.
Also it seems that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is naive, weak and too young to understand. No wonder these arguments get circular when you offer only insults instead of discussing Church teachings.
The fact is John, whether you like it or not, homosexuals can be Catholic. If an unchaste homosexual is not repentant, he can be refused the Eucharist but he will still be Catholic. This by the way, is true for anyone who is unchaste and unrepentant.
Jaime
More lefty foolishness from McCarrick. He is no Shepherd. The “dialogue” should be McCarrick stating the Church teaching and telling these arrogant people to return to Christ before it is too late. We all are so brainwashed by pop culture that we do not know the truth or authetic charity anymore. We are an Oprah generation, too psychologized to accept the authority of Christ the King.
Jaime, I did not infer any such thing. Of course they remain Catholic. My issue is with another futile exercise in “dialogue.”
My assumption is that you cannot have been a Catholic too long or you would have gagged by now on yet another use of dialogue.
The Rainbow Sash people are not only unrepentant, they are right “in your face” demanding acceptance and approval for their joy of sodomy. I have no trouble with contrite homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, an infinitum these days, receiving communion if they have gone to confession. If they are chaste there is no issue whatsoever, Jaime.
Chamberlain loved dialogue and it got us into WWII. Those in the Church who dialgue with Evil simply strengthen it. We need bishops who act like prophets. McCarrick is simply ducking the issue and avoiding his responsibility as a shepherd of the Church. Not an unusual position in these times for many of our bishops and pastors.
One is reminded of Paul VI’s Ostpolitik. I prefer the “no compromise with evil” approach better.
John, your assumptions about me are wrong. You assume from my arguments that I am young, naive and haven’t been Catholic too long. Apparently I have not adequately demonstrated my degree in Catholic Theology or my many years of working for the Church. Or perhaps it is easier to dismiss the facts and opinions offered by someone if you can be condescending first.
Make whatever assumptions you want about me. Consider me a gay hindhu for all I care.
By your own admission, the sash wearers are indeed Catholic. They have the right to have an audience with the Cardinal. And I will state again, Canon law states that the unrepentant sinner can be refused the Eucharist. But they are still a part of Holy Mother Church
Jaime, it is perhaps your degree in Catholic theology and your years of working for the Church that seem to make you glaze your eyes in wonder at the term “dialogue.” I am not sure if anyone has a “right” to an audience with this Cardinal or any other. And I am not sure if the Hindus would appreciate you disparaging their religion.
Of course, he will. But we knew that already didn’t we?
“One is reminded of Paul VIin the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.”
Notice, the last sentence. “Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.”
Furthermore, it says, “178. Hence whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the imputability.
179. Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which eresting.
Michigan Catholic,
“Since when are we talking about liturgical abuses here? Wewp:comment_id>11450
michigancatholic@hotmail.com
http://www.michigancatholic.blogspot.com
66.255.204.12
2004-06-08 20:51:46
2004-06-09 00:51:46
Coll, want some of my pepto bismol? I order it by the case. Had to. Been Catholic 20 years now.
Coll,
The bag ready…..that is exactly what is going to happen if you keep coming here. Because this is about a dialogue.
Michigan Catholic,
“The Rainbow Sash travesty is far more than a liturgical abuse. Its pointless to try and dialogue. BS, yes, dialogue, no.
When people start trotting out canonical legalisms for situations that are not applicable, it’s time to hang up. If someone wishes to believe that butterflies male buttermilk, it;s fine with me…on their own dime.
I have read the documents of V2, Camilam, and many others. (I’m rather well-read too, having advanced degrees in philosophy). But I am very careful to keep their meanings in context—I try not to proof-text them too much, and I am aware of the ways to interpret and misinterpret. I’m trained, dontcha know.
Documents are a bit like statistics. If you use them to your own ends, with a wee bit of skill, you can make them say pretty much anything you want. Ever wonder why the “sola scriptura” people have 5000+ denominations, all relying on scripture only?? Now you know.
Dialogue seems to be a trend word that we picked up somewhere, like “groovy”, “far out” and “Sup, homie?” I hate it. It has been used to push so much baloney down peoples’ throats, I don’t think it actually has a concise meaning for Catholics anymore. That’s what Coll is telling you, I believe. I concur. “Dialogue” usually means plug your ears and hang onto your wallet.
Besides, if all talk is “dialogue,” only one tone of voice is legal. That cuts out more than half of communication. You can’t cheer for the home team, express joy or surprise. If you have to dialogue everything, imagine what the dog might think of you….heh heh. You can’t call him to dinner anymore. He actually thinks you don’t mind if he pees on the rug!
I agree that being informed on the Chruch is a good thing. But it hardly gets a person anywhere if they can’t see the historical lessons and apply them.
Where exactly do you think this particular issue will lead us? If this succeeds in getting entrenched in our churches, what vice will be next? (There are people who want to have sex with animals made legal, for instance.) Will we be forced to “dialogue” with them too? And what will this do to our carefully worked out tradition of moral philosophy? Will Aquinas be discredited? How about Augustine, John of the Cross, Dominic, Francis, etc. etc.
I’m curious about what you think on this one.
Its ironic John how you know the definition of dialogue but refuse to participate in it. Camilam’s “legalisms” or Holy Mother Church’s teachings referenced dealt with the issues of Church authority and our ability to bring our grievances to them. Respecting the leadership of the Ordinary is integral to our faith and our teachings.
You cling to Canon 915 because it suits you and ignore any doctrine that does not fit your needs. You disparage our church leaders who were appointed to sheperd us. We do not vote them in. Cardinal McCarrick has done nothing wrong and he will not change church doctrine by meeting with the Rainbow Sash.
You can disagree with someone and honor and respect them simultaneously. Well, others can..
And even more important, Camilam, if the word of God prohibits homosexual behavior (and it explicitly does), how can it be permitted, or even admitted to a conversation which seems to promise relaxation of those divine laws in scripture? Wouldn’t we be just lying through our teeth instead of “dialoguing?”
How does it work when you dialogue with a diabetic kid over the possibility of a candy bar they can never have? Isn’t that just cruelty?
Jaime, I wouldn’t be so quick to exonerate Cardinal McCarrick or any other prelate at this point. You don’t know either way and neither do I.
Perhaps you don’t know of anything he has done wrong, ok?
Thank you, Jaime. I am glad that you took the onus off of me of honoring someone who, for whatever reason, undermines the discipline of the Church. You may also simultaneously respect him in my place if you wish.
I wish you all a blessed night. May the Lord keep your dreams simple and humble like the folks that you truly are.
A blessed night to you too, John.
Perhaps Cdl McCarrick just wants to tell them in secret that he personally thinks they’re ok with him and that’s his private opinion. Well, if it never becomes public, and it never gets publicized at all, and never causes a scandal because no one ever finds out about it, hmmmm, I don’t know how serious that would be.
But somehow, I don’t think that’s what they’re after. =)
I think the sought-after prize is something like this:
1) Tacit statements to the effect that scripture is wrong, tradition is wrong, all our saints are wrong, and we have been mistaken for 2000 years about Divine Revelation and the nature of man. Oh, and the Jews before us because on this issue we believe the same things.
2) or failing that, the process objective—getting our prelates to contradict each other so well that the NY Times, Boston Globe etc etc can pick us apart and belittle us til we buckle, which they hope we will. See choice 1).
This is the REAL OBJECTIVE of *dialogue.*
“And even more important, Camilam, if the word of God prohibits homosexual behavior (and it explicitly does), how can it be permitted, or even admitted to a conversation which seems to promise relaxation of those divine laws in scripture?”
No one has condoned the actions of the Rainbow Sash movement. I would NEVER condone any sinful action. However, we are called to love our brothers. And we can certainly listen to him, in order to understand his position, if for no other reason than to be able to properly teach him. He is still a human and due proper dignity. It is his actions, not his person tha is sinful.
“Wouldn:comment_author>
jfellows@visi.com
66.173.35.66
2004-06-08 22:40:55
2004-06-09 02:40:55
Exactly Camilam
“I think the sought-after prize is something like this:
1) Tacit statements to the effect that scripture is wrong, tradition is wrong, all our saints are wrong, and we have been mistaken for 2000 years about Divine Revelation and the nature of man. Oh, and the Jews before us because on this issue we believe the same things.
2) or failing that, the process objective—getting our prelates to contradict each other so well that the NY Times, Boston Globe etc etc can pick us apart and belittle us til we buckle, which they hope we will. See choice 1).
This is the REAL OBJECTIVE of *dialogue.*”
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, if you have so little faith in the heirarchy, I will pray for you. How about the idea that the Church and her apostlic successors know what they are doing? Again, obediance to the Ordinary. We are called to it.
God Bless,
Camilam
You know, the crazy thing about all this, too, is that if an individual homosexual person wants to have a genuine conversation about real moral theology, they can step into a confessional on any saturday and obtain that, complete with sacramental absolution. All that is required is the desire to do better and stay out of these mobs.
The Lord is very kind but He does have a right to expect something, after all.
Which is true for every one of us Michigan Catholic. Its true for all of us
Camilam, that is simplistic and you know it if you are as well-educated as you say. Good grief. Think back on all the cases of lay investiture and then tell me this with a straight face. Your ordinary is part of a bigger whole. If your ordinary tells you to drop your pants, you don’t have to do it. And don’t tell me that hasn’t happened. It has. In many places. We have resignation documents to prove it. And more. Obey your ordinary when he is in union with the universal Church.
You ask about my faith in the church. I have a lot of faith in God and His church, although not much in individual persons when power, money, sex & prestige are involved.
The Catholic Church, indeed, has scriptural guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. There aren’t many details in that statement, however. A lot of particular things could happen while that statement remains true. I’m not one to make rash predictions of rosy outcomes. I’ve read the Catechism and it’s paragraphs on this topic. Think about it, my friend.
It is the nature of this life that we must work at being virtuous. It isn’t easy and it’s not meant to be. Otherwise, this life would be pointless. But then so would heaven.
Yes, Jaime, it’s true for every Catholic. All you have to do is want and intend to stay out of sin. And be willing to admit past sinfulness. It’s very simple.
Camilam:
My Question: “you believe that ALL (the sum total) of what they want is a conversation with no doctrinal concessions? Do you think they went through the entire sash program for just this?
You know, I’m sure, that even non-Catholics are aware of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” tagline. Do you think they hate their sin? Then why not just confess it and get absolution? Why the histrionics?
If anyone thinks the sash-ayers are interested in hearing the Church’s teaching explained to them, they’re pretty naive. These people know what the Church’s teaching is. Read their own press release: They think that their advocacy of unchaste homosexuality is the “sensus fidelium” and thus the only one they want to listen is the cardinal and they want his reaction to be, “Gee, you’re right, we’ll change the Church’s teaching.”
“I think the sought-after prize is something like this:
1) Tacit statements to the effect that scripture is wrong, tradition is wrong, all our saints are wrong, and we have been mistaken for 2000 years about Divine Revelation and the nature of man. Oh, and the Jews before us because on this issue we believe the same things.
2) or failing that, the process objective—getting our prelates to contradict each other so well that the NY Times, Boston Globe etc etc can pick us apart and belittle us til we buckle, which they hope we will. See choice 1).
This is the REAL OBJECTIVE of *dialogue.* “
I believe you’re completely right on that michigancatholic. These spiritual terrorists (and I think what they did at Mass was a form of terrorism) want the Church to condone (or at least to not bring up) the particular sin to which they are drawn [which is precisely what the Church has been doing in many places for the past 40 years]. It is McCarrick’s job to teach them and help them to understand why they are wrong. That may well be an impossible task, as you suggest, but it is still his job (and ours too) to try. – And ya know – in a situation like this – to really enable the possibility of conversion – you need a person of moral courage, great moral clarity, one who is filled with the Holy Spirit, whose heart is so filled with God’s love that he will do anything to help keep sinners from mortally sinning, who is brave enough to take the likely (and inevitable) persecution when facing those who are infected with a form of evil, and whose love of God at least has the possibility of conferring a bit of His grace on those who cannot see what others do. One of the greatest problems in our Chruch today is that so many bishops and cardinals do not seem to be of that vine. Finally, and this is of course always true – even the slightest attempts or hints at moral appeasement (just like with those who would fly airplanes into skyscrapers), will only enflame the situation, embolden the promoters of evil and further the rot in the Church. I hope and pray that Mr. McCarrick understands that.
“Obey your ordinary when he is in union with the universal Church.”
Thank you, michigancatholic, for explaining that. Our obedience is to God and to Christ and to His Church – but not to representatives of that Church who have been infected with different forms of evil, corruption and gross perversion.
These folks who accept the idea of “dialogue” between those who advocate perversion and a Catholic Cardinal are disingenuous. I, also, think they are guilty of promoting clericalism. Obedience is a must, but only to a just command, not to anyone who would compromise the Truth.
The sashers are not interested in any discussion about theology. They are only interested in creating confusion and getting some cleric to say having “gay” relations is not a mortal sin.
The Church teachings on these matters are well known. If they want so called clarification, they should say publicly they accept Christ’s teaching first and will try to understand it after.
“Camilam, that is simplistic and you know it if you are as well-educated as you say.”
It may be simplistic, but it is a simple matter. There is nothing complex about this….
“Do you seriously think this will satisfy them? Do you believe that ALL (the sum total) of what they want is a conversation with no doctrinal concessions? Do you think they went through the entire sash program for just this?”
I don’t know, and neither do you. The Catechism teaches that we are to allow everyone to form their own consciences, according to what is best for them. However, if they are not formed rightly, then we are to teach them so as to rightly form their conscience.
If I were to assume anything, I would assume that the Cardinal is following this line of reasoning.
“You know, Iroying society, we can offer him due respect and honor.
With the Church under attack from without and within, we don’t need Quislings in high office.
I agree that the confessional is the place for anyone to take up problems with sin – and sodomy is sin. I don’t know what I would do if I brought children to Mass and they were exposed to this sash nonsense. A TV I can turn off, but walking out of Mass isn’t an option. Oh yes, it would be a “teaching moment” for sure – but if the heirarchy of the church is having such a difficult time handling this then pity the poor parents – many (maybe most) of whom were not well-taught themselves.
I don’t recall anywhere in the Church nor its foundation that we are to dialogue on the niceties of sin. Do we sell religious goods in porno book stores?
Yes, walking out of a mass that is being defiled is an option. It is more tha that, it is a necessity.
Mr Bettinelli, at no point have you seen myself or Camilam argue that the Sash group did not have an agenda. Nor have you seen us argue that their agenda was a correct one. But while they have an incorrect agenda, it does not alleviate our responsibility to minister to them. Especially when they ask.
The Cardinal is doing exactly that. I have spent years having the same conversation with pro choice people over and over again. They come back for more because I made it clear that I love the sinner and hate the sin. Some have changed their views. Some may take 10 more years. But those opportunities would never have happened if I simply said “Enough, take a hike”.
There is no doubt that everyone who has offered an opinion here is passionate about the Catholic faith. Our first calling is to seek the truth. Our second calling is to reveal that truth to those who have not found it at every single opportunity.
While this is certainly not going to be agreed with on this thread, I would love to see the Cardinal meet with the Sash group weekly (Followed by meetings with the pro-choice movement with their agenda) Let them come with their agenda. Let them demand that homosexuality be accepted by the Church. Let them come as often as needed until they find the truth.
“With that being said, we are to be obedient, until Rome tells us not to be.”
Dear sons,
As you know, there have been horrific cases of priests’ engaging in homosexual molestations of teenage boys like you. This is a sad and horrible manifestation of evil and disgusting sexual perversion in our Church. The Church and good will prevail, but you must equip yourself against the possibility that such could occur to you (for your two Catholic schools, your parish and your diocese have been infected with this evil). So, to make things short, if a priest or bishop or deacon ever makes a sexual advance toward you of any sort, please understand that you are to recognize this evil and depravity for what it is, and you have my encouragement to 1) punch the guy in the face; 2) walk out; 3) inform us, your parents, who truly love you; and 4) join us at the police station to have the man arrested. Under no circumstances should you obey such a man, even if a priest, who is promoting such perversion and evil. Got it?
Love, Dad
Camilam – Should my sons obey such a monster until he gets a notice from Rome to the contrary?
“The Catechism teaches that we are to allow everyone to form their own consciences, according to what is best for them.
No, people are to form their consciences according to what is True, in accord with reason and the will of God. People have all kinds of ways of believing that sin and evil are ation faithfully.”
Why should we Camilam? These are people who do not even know that it is wrong to give homosexual molestor priests access to ever new sets of teenage boys and then to lie and obfuscate about it. They are also the same people who have allowed rampant heterodoxy in the Church, who have presided over the turning away of millions of Catholics from going to Mass, who have watered down Catholic catechesis into irrelevance…. Why should we trust them?
“Donrue love, right”
When Christ walked the earth, many walked away from His hard teachings. He did not chase them and dialogue. Was Christ unloving?
What we need is for bishops and priests to preach on these hard teachings each week. At some point we might reintroduce the concepts of modesty and shame into our culture. If that were to happen, then most would be offended that any “group” would ask for a listening session with a prince of the Church to lobby for “gay sex”. That so many would defend such a notion only reveals how far we have perverted the concepts of authentic charity and authentic love. It is a joke.
“I am very well aware of the issues, but I am also aware that many bishops have many ways of dealing with things.”
The bishops’ way of dealing with multiple homosexual molestations of teenage boys by priests: 1) get the accusers to shut up, by threats if necessary; 2) make sure the police are told nothing; 3) move the molestors to other parishes without letting anyone know of the danger; 4) lie to the press and to the parishioners; 5) refuse to admit that there is a homosexuality problem in the priesthood; 6) pretend they’re appalled by what they themselves brought about.
C’mon, why should we trust these people (almost all of whom are still in power)?
“When Christ walked the earth, many walked away from His hard teachings. He did not chase them and dialogue. Was Christ unloving?”
No, actually, hardhead, Christ did chase them, and he was infinitely loving. He purposefully set out to eat and speak with tax collectors and adulterers and the lowlives of that time (and was, of course, harshly criticized for such). For as he told us, the well do not need a doctor, but the sick do. In fact, that was Christ’s whole purpose, to reach out to sinners. And since we are all sinners, he came for all of us. Abandoning people to their sins and perversity is not truly loving, no matter how you slice it. The cardinal should make his best attempt – even if he unlikely to succeed. – – But I’m 100% with you on the shame and modesty thing! It’s really gotten crazy. (In my son’s elementary school, before we put him into Catholic school, the principal was attacked (and ultimately sacked) by parents for not allowing a 2nd grade girl to do a parody of a strip tease act at the annual talent show.) In the local high school here, half the girls look like prostitutes (and some of them are). And this is in a well-off New Jersey suburb.
When Christ told them they must eat His flesh, many walked away. He did not chase them. See bishops Sheridian’s recent letter defending his words about mortal sin and receiving communion. He made the same analogy.
When Christ did seek out sinners, He did so for their conversion. Christ told his apostles at times they must shake the dust from their sandals. Certainly, not a call to dialogue.
Yes, we must be open to talk with all people. But, their is a time when we must preach the Truth and leave the rest to God.
Hardhead, yes its true that Christ let people walk away from his teachings. Free will. But he never denied anyone who approached him, even if they had an agenda. Whether it be whores, drunks, lepers or pharicees. Now the response to that statement will most likely be “Yes Jaime but the whores,drunks and lepers repented immediately” I can’t disagree. My only defense would be that I am not as good at illuminating the truth as Christ was. I may need a few more shots at it. Maybe our bishops and cardinals do as well.
Sinner you have brought up the molestations many times. And every time you have brought it up, you’ve been correct in the points you’ve made about the corruption and the handling of the entire horror. Your shock, pain and disgust is completely justified. (and you certainly don’t need me to tell you that)
There is healing that needs to continue. We will always have the hierarchy. Yes they have let us down tremendously with the scandal.
“When Christ did seek out sinners, He did so for their conversion.”
Agreed, hardhead. That’s what McCarrick should be trying for.
“Yes, we must be open to talk with all people. But, there is a time when we must preach the Truth…”
The two aren’t mutually exclusive! We should always do both. Right?
Hey hardhead –
If McCarrick makes a serious, holy and faithful attempt to help these sodomites understand what they do not, and to persuade them to give up sin and embrace God’s love and truth, and they vitriolically reject him and heap scorn on him, well, then, sure, he should shake the dust from his sandals. But after doing that, he should turn around and say, “But if any of you should come to see the light, I will be there waiting for you…” (Just like the father was there waiting for the prodigal son…)
“Sinner you have brought up the molestations many times.”
Hey Jaime,
Thanks for your words. I do not bring up the scandal with any pleasure, and I am truly incredibly disheartened and in shock by the things which have taken place – and saddened by the state of the Church in which my children will mature. I do it because I honestly do not believe that the evil which brought it about has been truly expunged from the Church. When I come someday to believe that (and I hope and pray that I will live to see that day), I will drop it. Until then, I think we should not have any illusions about the type of people leading our Church.
Look, I agree we all should be open to speak with those who reject the truth, but we must discern properly. Is someone actually looking to learn the truth, or do they have an agenda that will distort the Truth and cause scandal to others?
This sash incident is not a teaching moment or an opportunity to share the Gospel. It is a blatant attempt to use the Church to further a false Gospel.
I read the phrase listening session. Words have menaing. A listening session implies the group wants to lobby for their immoral cause. If the Cardinal is genuine, he would tell these folks publicly that he will meet, but will never compromise the Truth and the sashers must repent and return to the fold. That would be Christ-like.
Hardhead, The fact is the sash wearers do have an agenda. Please explain to me how their meeting with the Cardinal (with their agenda) will “distort the Truth and cause scandal to others”?
To whom? You? Me? How? Let them wear their sashes in the Cardinals office (not at Mass). Let them voice their opinions and let Cardinal McCarrick do the right thing. And to add to your list of things the Cardinal should do, he should tell them that no matter what, Christ loves them.
A “gay” group that meets with the Cardinal is like the KKK meeting with the cardinal. What is the point? They are against the teachings of Christ. The cardinal needs to make very clear publicly that homosexual conduct is evil. The appearance that the Church is capitulating to evil is a scandal.
If the cardinal makes it clear he is meeting to explain the truth, then that would be a good thing. The appearance is that it is a ploy for the homosexuals to vent their feelings toward the Church, not an honest seeking of the truth.
Yes, Christ loves us all. There is no shortage of that preaching. There is a serious shortage of preaching about our obligations to God. If more time were spent on that, there would be less people walking around with banners that insult Christ.
“The cardinal needs to make very clear publicly that homosexual conduct is evil”
According to our Catechism 2357 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Note that the Church does not refer to it as evil.
Jaime,
When the Catechism calls something “intrinsically disordered” it means that doing it is a sin. It is evil. Plenty of other Church documents are more explicit in naming what it is.
Intrinsically disordered does not mean they cannot be evil as well. Mortal sin is an evil. Split hairs if you wish. Either way, it sends one to hell.
Jaime – The Bible makes it very clear that those who engage in such acts endanger their salvation. Christ tells us that sexual immorality is a form of evil (which includes homosexual acts). And as Dom points out, many Church documents refer to homosexual acts as a form of evil. It is a form of evil, because it selfishly makes use of another person in a way that God never intended (and which is also often physically harmful to that person). That is may be consensual makes no difference (just like two drunks can buy alcohol for each other). Finally, Jaime, all sin is a form of evil.
“If the Cardinal is genuine, he would tell these folks publicly that he will meet, but will never compromise the Truth and the sashers must repent and return to the fold. That would be Christ-like.”
Exactly, hardhead. We’re on the same page.
Agreed Mr Bettinelli. The point that I was making is that it used to be considered intrinsically evil and changed the language to make it in line with other grave moral sins.
I quoted Catechism (and the language change )because I get the overwhelming feeling from the posts that many feel homosexuality is a worse sin than any other grave moral sin. If I am wrong, I will admit to it. If people have a bias or fear of homosexuality, that’s not unheard of. But on both threads the Sash group has been compared to other organizations that everyone (globally) hates and thinks is evil.
I do not think the Sashers are evil. Thus, in my opinion, the comparisons to the KKK and others is worth merit. I don’t think this level of rhetoric would occur if this was a group asking for the acceptance of pre-marital sex or masturbation which are both disordered and grave moral sins. Missing Mass is a mortal sin.
While I do not agree with this groups tactics last week or their purpose, I do not think they should be villified to the extent they have. Where the mention of a meeting is commensurate to a scandal. If I am wrong, and people would get equally emotional to say a group that wanted the weekly Mass requirement changed. Then fine.
I have probably overstated my opinion on this thread so I will leave it at this.
“If people have a bias or fear of homosexuality, thatnner hells.
Jaime – A quote from St. Augustine –
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
“You of all, because you have read all posts, should know that I am anything but naive.”
Oh, but I don’t. What are you trying to tell me, friend? If you’re trying to tell me you understand the issue, I would say you are completely naive. You don’t know what you are talking about. If you are trying to tell me you have…ahem…experiential knowledge of one sort or another…..then I would tell you that you are no one to be telling anyone what to do. We’ve discussed this part fully.
I think he was talking to me.
Jaime, I have seen long discussions on the internet regarding other mortal sins as well, not just this one. Birth control, abortion, divorce, child sexual abuse etc etc. Where have you been?
Camilam,
You said, “Is that not how the Church teaches.rs), when not actually abusing kids sexually, has completely abandoned my kids to the sexual license and perversion that now floods our society. They are AWOL where they are most needed. They are letting all true Catholic parents down bigtime – and millions of kids will suffer as a result. – The alternative – what it’s always been. Go out and proclaim God’s truth about human sexuality, boldly, unabashedly, and without fear – and let the chips fall where they may (a screaming New York Times, upset politicians, demonstrating terroristic Sashists, condoms thrown at them, a freaked out Planned Parenthood, being called fundamentalist, bigots and haters …). THAT, is their job. They should do it. But they won’t. Because they are afraid and wimply and cowardly and plain old chicken…
Jaime,
Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. They are wrong in every age and for any reason. The acts, not the persons, are intrinsically evil. If you are anyone else can show me proof they are not, I will change my position.
Homosexual acts are one of the handful of grave sins mentioned in the bible that call to heaven for justice. Please do not attempt to spin the truth. The catechism does does not downplay the truth, nor should we.
Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Jaime, you said: “There are no really really grave mortal sins.” I beg your pardon. Killing 6 million Jews in WW2 was not a whole lot of actual grave mortal sins??
Then the next line down, you said: “I would be dubious of anyone saying they have never committed a grave moral sin.”
That is what is called a contradiction, dear lady. And the denial of a contradiction yields a logical truth.
Or as St. Thomas Aquinas so well said it, ‘‘For true and false will in no better way be revealed and uncovered than in resistance to a contradiction.’’
That’s the fancy way of saying you don’t know what you are talking about.
Just in case your objection is that you said “really really grave mortal sins” and “grave mortal sins,” it is the case that these are all classified as mortal sins. There is no definitional formal difference between committing a “really really grave mortal sin” and a “grave mortal sin,” just like there’s no difference between going to hell and really really going to hell.
That’s just funny.
Michigancatholic
I have no idea what you are talking about. And thanks for bringing up the Nazis
Also if you are going to quote me quote me accurately. the phrase is grave MORAL sins as defined by our church. These are sex outside of marriage, acts of homosexuality, acts that are outside of intercourse within marriage, and masturbation. All are bad. But there is not a hierarchy of grave moral sins. And again, I will state that I would be surprised if anyone on this thread would state that they have never committed a grave moral sin.
Oh and not that its a big deal but I’m a guy
It is also the case that there have been people who have <scripture doesn’t even permit—literally. (see Corinthians 6:9-10 above). IN PUBLIC—BY FORCE—THAT IS THE ISSUE.
You are doing the same thing Eric was doing earlier—changing the argument away from the sash protesters, trying to get people to agree to a much lesser argument to get your way.
<b>You change the argument—it’s a different argument—-you lose the original argument. Got it?? </b>
So don’t try to stick a rainbow sash on me lady. I’ll have none of your perversions.
Jaime, they are moral sins and they are also MORTAL sins. The kind that send a person to hell.
Sorry, James.
Oiy
Sinner, hardhead and others have said that they do consider acts of homosexuality to be far worse than other grave moral sins (mortal sins include others that aren’t grave moral) . So I have not changed the argument, I have responded to it.
I don’t even know where you are going with me “sticking a rainbow sash on you”.
Michigancatholic, you are demonstrating that you aren’t reading the threads thoroughly
You need to read more closely.
I’m reading them, Jaime. It’s just that some of them (take note) are pretty trivial.
Just to repeat what got chopped a little above:
It is also the case that there have been people who have not committed mortal sins in their lives. St. Therese of Lisieux was such a person. It is possible, you know. She was thoroughly obedient to the church, BTW.
It’s disingenuous to try to get us to excuse the sins of others by tarring us with our sins too.
The point here is that we are not out trying to proclaim our sins as a way of life!! We are not out disrupting Mass to prove a political point!!
We are not trying to manipulate Christian theology into something that Scripture doesn’t even permit—literally. (see Corinthians 6:9-10 above). IN PUBLIC—BY FORCE—THAT IS THE ISSUE.
People are telling you that homosexuality is in scripture literally—that’s significant. But the defiance is very important too. That compounds the sin of homosexual sex. So now there are TWO SINS, count em, both mortal. And the possibility of more—sacrilege etc.—also a mortal sin.
You are doing the same thing Eric was doing earlier—changing the argument away from the sash protesters, trying to get people to agree to a much lesser argument to get your way.
You change the argument—it’s a different argument—-you lose the original argument. Got it??
So don’t try to stick a rainbow sash on me by implication, Jaime. I may be guilty of some things, but disrupting Mass by insisting that my mortal sins are a gift from God is not one of them.
Sigh…
Michigancatholic, this is getting circular. I am going to try to explain it one last time.
People are arguing that because the Sash group is proclaiming that they are homosexual, they SHOULD NOT be allowed to meet with the Cardinal. My arguments have been in defense that they have that right as Catholics if the Cardinal has granted them an audience. It is not a scandal.
I have not changed the argument. As far as disrupting the Mass, (i.e. throwing a sash on you) you’ve clearly missed my point. I have argued against the sash wearers disrupting mass as well as the Ushers of the Eucharist.
Again (back to reading thoroughly) its about whether the Cardinal is being weak or compassionate to meet with this group.
And just to clear up a point.. yes grave moral sins are also mortal. But there are mortal sins that aren’t grave moral sins.
And in case you need reminding, please read the original article by Domenic at the top. This *IS* about the Rainbow Coalition’s tactics to get *dialogue* with Cardinal McCarrick—whether it is wise, whether it can actually accomplish anything at all and what effect it will have on the faithful members of the Catholic Church in the United States.
NO, Jaime. People are NOT arguing that individual gays can’t meet with the cardinal.
People are telling you that a pressure group called the RAINBOW COALITION, responsible for outrageous political displays in Mass, should not be allowed to pressure the Cardinal or any church official into meeting with them over something that simply cannot happen. EVER. Because Scripture, 2000 years of history and all of our moral theology won’t permit it.
If individual homosexuals want to be faithful catholics, then they can obey the laws of the church and confess when they sin, just like all the rest of us.
BUT they gang up in political mobs, put on sashes, claim their mortal sins are gifts from God in the center aisle of our cathedrals, disrupt our Masses and screw up 2000 years of chruch teachings.
UNDERSTAND??
Jaime,
“But there are mortal sins that aren’t grave moral sins.”
HUH? What are you saying?
My point is that homosexualist lobbying groups that want to meet, while really making a political play, is not wise for any involved. The Cardinal has not shown himself to be a stalwart orthodox man. The entire episode leaves many wondering what the heck the Church is teaching.
If homosexuals want to discuss what the Church teaches, then privately go to a priest. Our society has many avenues to learn our faith.
Hardhead,
“
2004-06-11 14:47:05
Surely, Mr. Bettinelli, the deep compassion of Holy Mother Church will recognize at some point that people of the same sex can and do love each other. There is perversity among heterosexuals, too. We see how many of our bishops and religious are more and more coming to this point of view.
I am with Mr Bettinelli on this one (I’m pretty sure Camilam will come in the same voice.)
True love between any two people is indeed holy. But that love would never realize itself in actions that are detrimental to the person who is being loved.
I have always understood your criticism Mr Bettinelli. But I see it as a catch 22 proposal. Meet with them and be accused of being weak. Ignore them and have them violate the sanctity of the Eucharist next year.
Groups that are disenfranchised from the Church need to be heard. They need to be respected and respect has never translated into capitulation. If we show them respect, they will hopefully respond in kind.
Jaime
I am with Mr. Bettinelli as well. He rightly asserts that homosexuality is a sin. This sin, as any other cannot be tolerated.
Actually, the Church will recognize that homosexual persons have an innate dignity, but their actions, if contrary to the teachings, do not. If the love that persons of the same sex have is anything other than filial, then it is intrinsically disoriented. And they should be taught to love in a filial way.
While there is certainly perversity among heterosexuals, it should be noted that that is sinful as well. For ANY sexual action that does not promote unity, procreation, and chastity is sinful. Conjucal love is called to fidelity and fecundity.
God Bless,
Camilam
No, vistulason, She won’t. Yes, people of the same sex can love each other, but not in the way you evidently mean. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
Some sexual relations between heterosexuals is sinful and disordered, but all sexual relations between homosexuals is sinful and disordered.
As Camilam says, we are all called to filial love, but only one man and one woman can have romantic love, i.e. marital love.
I respectfully acknowledge your points of view. What troubles me about the absolute, final prohibitions of relations between two members of the same sex is that religious rules have changed in the past. Jesus eliminated the Jewish dietary laws that inspired such martyts as the Maccabees. He amielorated the strictness of Sabbath observances; and was comfortable with the absolute outcasts of his society (not the lepers) the Samaritans.
After his Ascension, the Apostles eliminated or made option circumcision—a mark of the faithful believer.
So even then, what seemed eternal changed.
My question seems to be out eternalizing of sexual mores within the Church. We have no way of knowing what will happen in 25 years. And then what of our present condemnation?
“Sins can be more or less great. A couple of examples. Murder is graver than theft. Violence against a parent is graver than that against a stranger.
Yes, I agree. The wording was confusing to me. I see no reason it was mentioned. Finally, it does not matter. It seems to be a theological point. Any mortal sin removes sanctifying grace and if one dies like that, one sends oneself to hell for eternity.
Vistulason,
You are very confused as to eternal teaching. Christ eliminated the ceremonial law of the OT. He kept the moral law. He came to fulfill the law. He said heaven and earth shall pass away before one letter of the law passes.
Homosexual sex is intrinsically evil and can never and will never be acceptable to Christ. The Church has never changed one moral teaching, never once. Please provide proof to the contrary. There is no proof.
To proclaim the Church will change, or could change, such a teaching is either from profound ignorance or from those who have been given over to their mortal sins.
Vistulason, I respectfully encourage you to learn the difference between dogmas and disciplines. Dogmas of the Church are unchanging teachings that have been consistently handed down from Jesus Christ through the apostles to the bishops. That includes teachings on sexual morality. They have not changed in 2,000 years.
Teachings like dietary restrictions and things like that are disciplines which may adapt to changing circumstances. You refer to the rituals and rites of the Old Covenant that Jesus came to fulfill.
We do know what will happen in 25 years because the next 25 years will be the same as the last 2,000. Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, unchanging and faithful.
There just isn’t a dogma that has changed in the past 2,000 years and you won’t find one. It’s interesting that you have to reach into the Old Testament to try to find an example and even then it isn’t apt.
Mr Bettinelli and Camilam
I have been reading through the dogmas of the church and I have not found any directly dealing with sexual morality. Please point me in the right direction to find these dogmas.
I do have to disagree with you Mr Bettinelli on the idea that church teachings on sexual morality has not changed in 2000 years. St Augustine proclaimed that women being on top was a mortal sin. This was because of the lack of knowledge about physiology. That is no longer a sin.
Even more to the point, the Church recently changed doctrine to say that intercourse between a husband and a wife was for procreative and unitive purposes. That was a huge shift in the teachings of sexual morality. That was a significant “and”.
I may be splitting hairs here, but you’ve been good to call us out when we were not completely accurate.
If the teachings of the Church on homosexuality are dogma, please show me where. Thanks
Jaime
Perhaps the issues of gay irresponsibility might be resolved by allowing them to marry?
Vistulason, That’s like saying it would solve the problem of gay sex by allowing them to have children. Marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman. You can’t redefine it without making it something else.
Jaime, then with all due respect you’re not looking hard enough. There’s whole sections in the Catechism, in both the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles, the writings of the early Church fathers, and numerous encyclicals and other documents.
Maybe you misunderstand me: the Church’s dogmatic teachings on sexual morality have not changed in 2,000 years. St. Augustine was not pope and thus his pronouncements do not carry the seal of infallibility. And the Church teaching that marriage (not intercourse as you so limit it) has both procreative and unitive purposes is not new nor is it a shift. You should do some reading on the development of that teaching. And on the difference between dogma/doctrine and ordinary teaching/discipline.
Oh yes, and the dogma on homosexuality is expressed through the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, i.e. the Catechism, in its clear presentation that so many have quoted. It’s also found in other documents, several of which have been put forward by the Vatican in recent years. Try doing a search on the Vatican web site for “homosexual.”
Vistulason,
If we talked about this issue—homosexual sex—-and you told me whatever you wanted to about it, and I told you that it was objectively disordered and a mortal sin—pretty much what Domenico said, would you go away happy and think your concerns in this matter had been satisfied?
If you did some reading and found out that what Domenico has said is, in fact, true in the official documents, would you give assent to the doctrine of the universal Catholic Church, as it stands now, with respect to homosexual sex??? Because the Church teaches it and has taught it for 2000 years.
Is a conference all that is required to get there, do you think?
“Perhaps, in some way, the love between two people of the same sex may be holy in ways we don]]>
jfellows@visi.com
66.173.35.66
2004-06-12 16:17:35
2004-06-12 20:17:35
Mr Bettinelli
I have taken your suggestion to heart and done more research. What I have found that while the Catechism teaches about acts of homosexuality, it is not a dogma.
Please help me out here. I am not saying that because its doctrinal that it isn’t important or shouldn’t be followed. But there is a clear distinction made when something has been declared dogma. If one pursues an argument against a church doctrine, they can still be considered Catholic. You cannot do that with a dogma. That is heresy.
As I said I have been through my resources and I believe what I have stated is true. If not, please refer me to a document that states that the Church’s position on homosexual acts is indeed dogmatic.
I appreciate your help
Jaime
Well, Jaime, you got it right! “…the Church’s poisition on homsexual acts is indeed dogmatic.” Indeed!
Well you guys, try this one:
1 Corinthians 6
8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And Jaime, yes, violators of Church law may still be considered Catholic. But that doesn’t mean they are in union with God and my receive Holy Communion. People who have committed a mortal sin need to go to confession BEFORE they receive Holy Communion. Otherwise they also commit the sin of sacrilege. Some of the bishops are only trying to prevent that, because that alone can send a person to hell. It’s serious.
Vistulason:
You haven’t answered my questions above.
So I put them before you again:
If we talked about this issue—homosexual sex—-and you told me whatever you wanted to about it, and I told you that it was objectively disordered and a mortal sin—pretty much what Domenico said, would you go away happy and think your concerns in this matter had been satisfied?email>
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-06-12 18:25:16
2004-06-12 22:25:16
Jaime,
I think your definition of dogma or doctrine (they are the same thing) differs from mine. If you’re looking for a formal definition from the Pope: “I solemnly declare as the Successor of Peter…” then your definition is too narrow.
The Catechism is a dogmatic declaration of the Church’s teaching and carries the weight of the apostolic authority. The Church’s teaching on homosexuality has been taught consistently for the entire history of the Church. And the Pope cannot have been wrong in his teaching on homosexuality (or by giving his approval to such teaching) since he cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals (that’s the definition of the infallibility of the Pope.)
For a good treatment of dogma read the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia entry here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
Vistulason and Jaime,
As others have pointed out to you, dogmas, doctrines and Church discipline all must be obeyed under pain of mortal sin. Doctrines, or dogmas, never change and never will. Christ founded one Church. She has always taught the homosexual acts are evil. This can’t change. God can’t change. His moral law can’t change.
Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda that is at odds with the eternal Truth.