Christianity QA

Question:

If TNMM is not Catholic, then he can have it "both ways".  A non-Catholic has every right to agree or disagree with Catholic doctrine as they see fit.

OK, that’s certainly a fair statement. We as Anglicans also claim a right to "pick and choose" from among the received elements of the Apostolic Church, emphasizing those which we find most meaningful and helpful in our own spiritual lives. But "TNMM" just posted a "fancy fandango" dance-around-the-issue reply, saying it doesn’t really matter to him WHAT two people do in bed, as long as they’re a man and a woman. If he can assert his private and ersonal "ad hoc" code of sexual morality, so can we; but neither of our "codes" owes anything to the "teachings" being churned out of the Vatican — since each of our personal codes (the one regarding same-sex partnerships, the other regarding marital contraception) violates Vatican sexual teachings in a fundamental way. So why even bother to drag the "Roman Pontificators" into it from the get-go, since neither of us feels "bound" by what they declare? Doing so is a meaningless "red herring". In this case, TNMM is recognizing the fact that the RCC is right on this issue.

Which is, of course, merely an assertion of your private and personal opinion, and a "begging of the question" which has torn quite a rip in the Anglican Communion. There are good bishops supporting your position, and there are equally good bishops opposing it, both in England and in the United States. Gene Robinson aside, let’s not forget that there were many English bishops who SUPPORTED the consecration of Canon Jeffrey John, and felt he was wronged in being faorced to stand down, merely because of his sexual orientation. Do a cursory google search and you will find that it was virtually impossible for young Germans to avoid membership in the Hitler Youth after Hitler came to power.

Also a fair statement…and I’d be absolutely disposed never to mention his embarrassing affiliation again, were it not for the persistently (and chillingly) totalitarian cast of just about everything he writes. His high-handed arrogance does not imply a true "metanoia", a turning-away from an authoritarian history — in the way that, say, writing a theology which exhibited deep kindness, humility and compassion (so evident in the work of Fr. Bede Griffiths and Fr. Tom Merton) might actually testify.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")? Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM. Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law".

RATzinger’s statement automatically nullifies itself by saying "To CHOSE someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity."   CHOSE??!! No comments. To absolutely comply with the fossilized and absurd decrees of RATzinger and his "office," complying with the ban on using artificial contraceptives is not enough.  Conformity with Saint Augustine’s teachings maybe necessary where the careful "positioning" of the male and female are carefully observed and maintained during sex.  Further, what about other non-procreative sexual practices or oral sex, not to mention coitus interruptus (withdrawal).  All are based on flawed "laws" of ignorance of the human sexuality. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness

The fool who wrote that did not stop to think that a person’s own fulfillment and happiness is something that every person has to find for himself and is not some code written in the palaces of the Vatican. by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God.

The creative wisdom of God created gays as they are and therefore, there is not acting contrary to his wisdom.  If this natural need is wrong then God is paradoxically wrong. Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God". Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense, already.

Pope’s ghost-writer (I love this term of "endearment") RATzinger, the little Tin Hitler, is already exposed.  He is the corrupter of the church while hiding behind Karol Wojtyla’s skirt. Shan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")? Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM. Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law".

If TNMM is not Catholic, then he can have it "both ways".  A non-Catholic has every right to agree or disagree with Catholic doctrine as they see fit.  In this case, TNMM is recognizing the fact that the RCC is right on this issue. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood. Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God". Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense,

already. Do a cursory google search and you will find that it was virtually impossible for young Germans to avoid membership in the Hitler Youth after Hitler came to power.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")? Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM. Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law". As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood. Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God". Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense, already. Besides, I don’t see how the Vatican’s opinions can have any relevance to an Episcopalian. Didn’t we rid ourselves of their chains in the 16th century? Speaking for myself, I was attracted to Catholicism when I returned to the faith of my youth. However, I soon learned just how misguided that attraction was. The RCC is interested in maintaining its power first and foremost. One of the methods it achieves this is by controlling the private lives of its victims – primarily their sexual lives. It enables and protects its own perversions while creating an entire class of people it can demonize and scape goat. (And I include under its "perversions" what it has done to the message of Christ). Therefore, I reject it and all its works. I find myself becoming more and more Protestant all the time. Organized religion really appears to be one of humanity’s greatest banes (after government, of course). L

More Protestant WHAT??  We couldn’t get you to the alter with a bulldozer. You’d burst into flames anyway. …Mess up the flowers…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS   <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")?

What I think about one man’s interpretation of scripture may be different from what I think about his take on another. I see the Pope as a pilgram just like me, but I also see him as a wise man of God. And I happen to agree with him on the way he interprets what God considers a family. I have many differences with the catholic church, and I never claimed I didn’t. But when it comes to queers, I agree. I agree with them on other things, too.  Hell, fairy-man.. I don’t agree with everything my own Pastor says! But I do agree with everything the Bible says. Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM.

Who knows what goes on between those sheets? Just them two and God, I guess (the Pope’s usually not invited). Outside of there though, they’re a man and a woman and a couple. And everything’s cool by God in the man-and-woman department, see…. So long as they’re married. "Male and Female created them He" Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law".

Beats the hell out what you use to define it by… Your perverted self-centered twisted unnatural lusts! When normal people have sex, whether children come of it makes little difference one way or the other. The point is, it is at least possible under the correct circumstances. Even if they cannot conceive, it isn’t THEIR CHOICE. But You people purposely CHOOSE to mate within relationships where no breeding is even possible! And you called it what….?  "a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law"!? What a bunch of demonically possessed freaks!! It’s what makes the bloomin’ world go ’round! You aren’t a part of it (by your own choice, I will add), so you can’t see it. Even the most simple aspect of creation… a man for a woman, and you just can’t see it. The eye that alters alters all, they say. You are all sick in mind, spirit, body and soul. But God still loves you, I guess. If it were up to me, I’d push the one-way button to hell on all of you, and like yesterday. Deviants gum up the works sooner or later. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood. Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty.

It’s the creative wisdom of God. As in "Male and Female He created them". As in "A man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE".  YOU are the one in bondage. You are a slave to your evil sinful nature and the devil’s got you number big-time. You have a queer nature, and he knows all the weaknesses that come with that. He should. He created the desire. He placed it in your pliable little mind way back when, cause he knew you’d love it!  Satan is alive and well and living in your sick little mind, pansy-azz. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God".

 "Our love"….?? I’ll just bet the golden-showers crowd thinks the same thing! Or are you into that too? "Do as thou will". I think satan said that. Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it.

Homosexuality is evil. It is contrary to the laws of God and nature. It is happiness to you because you’re sleazy and you love to wallow in your perverted lasciviousness like the filthy swine-pig that you are. You are in love with your sin. It rots your soul with self-deception, but you see that as nourishment. It works hard to lure your body into a compromising position where it can then deliver the deathblow of disease, but you see that as freedom.  You deal with a temptation by REMOVING it, dumb-fuck. Fuck repression. Remove it often enough and there won’t be any left to repress much less spread. That’s my policy. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense, already.

You might have satan’s courts in your pocket, but you’ll never get the Catholics. And I’d put money’s on that. Evil faggot freaks… try to tell a catholic to do something the pope tells them not to do. They’ve been drilled, baby. Even the ones who aren’t religious later down the line have strong feeling in these directions. Why do you think the devil chose the Episcopalians for homosexual immersion? He never comes to the front door. Too many sets of questioning eyes. And Try to go up against the mass media when it comes to the Catholics. They just LOVE each other. What the Pope says is God’s law on earth, you’d better believe that, for better of for worse.  So you see…? You’d better get busy. That’s the real mountain you’ll need to climb before you’ll be able to do a damned thing with your vile evil sulfurous agenda.  You are evil because you worship evil as truth, and you will continue to pay the price for it. Both now and then in the hereafter.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")? Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM. Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law". As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood. Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God". Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense, already.

Besides, I don’t see how the Vatican’s opinions can have any relevance to an Episcopalian. Didn’t we rid ourselves of their chains in the 16th century? Speaking for myself, I was attracted to Catholicism when I returned to the faith of my youth. However, I soon learned just how misguided that attraction was. The RCC is interested in maintaining its power first and foremost. One of the methods it achieves this is by controlling the private lives of its victims – primarily their sexual lives. It enables and protects its own perversions while creating an entire class of people it can demonize and scape goat. (And I include under its "perversions" what it has done to the message of Christ). Therefore, I reject it and all its works. I find myself becoming more and more Protestant all the time. Organized religion really appears to be one of humanity’s greatest banes (after government, of course). L

Response:

Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS <sniparoo To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

So, do you also agree with the Vatican that the use of medical contraception by heterosexual married couples is "morally disordered" and "self-indulgent", for the very same stipulated reasons (i.e., the activity "is not a complementary union, able to transmit life")? Because that’s precisely what the Vatican argues, regarding married couples’ use of birth control. You can’t have it both ways, TNMM. Either you’re with the Vatican’s "program" on human sexuality, or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose "a la carte" options — at least according to the way THEY define sexual morality, under the terms of a very flawed and inadequate medieval theology of "natural law". As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

Classic Vatican Orwellian "doublespeak". Bondage is liberty. Denial of our love is the fulfillment of "the creative wisdom of God". Repression is happiness. Repeat it often enough, and maybe people will start to internalize it. Not to mention what great role models for their own "theology of sexuality" the Catholic clergy turned out to be. Cardinal Ratzinger — the Pope’s ghost-writer, who’s responsible for this "newspeak" noodling — has about as much theological credibility as the captain of the "Hitler Youth" in which he was enrolled during the 1940s. Enough with the Vatican nonsense, already.

Response:

Excerpt from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS ….Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other. In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion. Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God. In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts. 7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally. To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood. Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_c…

Response:

Related Posts