The Synod And Our Approach To Gay People

[4588686]

Yes, yes it does, and I'll go where I please.

 

 

Sorry that you have a sad over the fact that even your Church hierarchy things your views on gay people are gross and outdated.  

[4588686]

I'm not really sad. I find it amusing.  It's a great day when those who fight to squash the rights of other people to just get on and live on the same terms as everybody else have to look in the mirror and realize that they lost.  Even the institution which they've devoted their lives things they're sad and antiquated.  

[Paddington]

I'm not really sad. I find it amusing.  It's a great day when those who fight to squash the rights of other people to just get on and live on the same terms as everybody else have to look in the mirror and realize that they lost.  Even the institution which they've devoted their lives things they're sad and antiquated.  

 

I was watching Investigation Discovery with my mom and this one murderer who murdered his girlfriend who was cute but he said she was fat kind of looked like you, but bulkier and with long hair. He got convicted even though they never found the body, because many reasons. Do you have a brother in an Arizona prison? Do you watch Investigation Discovery? It's really good.

[Slappo]

I really dont even know why there is a poll essentially saying "Would you treat a homosexual person as a person or not?"

 

 

Answer is Yes.

Not that simple. It isn't a question of how we should treat them, but of how we would treat them.

[CrossCuT]

Not that simple. It isn't a question of how we should treat them, but of how we would treat them.

 

Like humans...like people with dignity. Like people made in Gods image.

 

This is like a super easy question for me...sorry you are all having a hard time.

[Credo in Deum]

I don't think anyone in this thread is against treating others with dignity.  I do believe they're against treating anti-Catholic agendas and beliefs with respect.    There is difference between respecting the dignity of the individual and respecting their beliefs.  I can have respect towards an individual who believes 2+2=8, but this does not mean I should have to show respect toward their belief that 2+2=8.   That would be insane. 

[4588686]

I don't think anyone in this thread is against treating others with dignity.  I do believe they're against treating anti-Catholic agendas and beliefs with respect.    There is difference between respecting the dignity of the individual and respecting their beliefs.  I can have respect towards an individual who believes 2+2=8, but this does not mean I should have to show respect toward their belief that 2+2=8.   That would be insane. 

 

Sure.  And some people believe that bread and wine turns into the flesh and blood of their god.  It's a ludicrous belief but we can still respect that in an open and pluralistic society they should be free to believe what they want.  So long as they don't use those beliefs to justify oppressing other members of that society because those same silly fairy tales say that gay sex is bad.  

[CrossCuT]

I don't think anyone in this thread is against treating others with dignity.  I do believe they're against treating anti-Catholic agendas and beliefs with respect.    There is difference between respecting the dignity of the individual and respecting their beliefs.  I can have respect towards an individual who believes 2+2=8, but this does not mean I should have to show respect toward their belief that 2+2=8.   That would be insane. 

 

Yeah I totes get the whole "love the sinner hate the sin" mumbo jumbo. But its not reality. *shrug*

 

and lol math

Edited October 14, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

So Im lazy and just now getting around to reading the majority of the comments in this thread.

 

I am face palming.

People are literally discussing "How does a homosexuals personal life affect me?", "How do homosexuals affect me at work?"

Answer is: It doesnt. It doesnt affect you. Chill out, and be normal. 

 

The fact that we have to sit here and have this discussion is why the world sucks. 

This thread is giving me ebola.

 

 

 

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Sure.  And some people believe that bread and wine turns into the flesh and blood of their god.  It's a ludicrous belief but we can still respect that in an open and pluralistic society they should be free to believe what they want.  So long as they don't use those beliefs to justify oppressing other members of that society because those same silly fairy tales say that gay sex is bad.  

 

Your example would like us to believe that the Eucharist is contrary to reason, when it is not.   A mystery is something which is beyond/above reason but not contrary to it.  Your example is not the same. 

[KnightofChrist]

Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"

October 14, 2014

The Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura says that a statement from Pope Francis "is long overdue"

Yesterday's presentation of the mid-term report (Relatio post disceptationem) of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family was met with a remarkable level of interest among both Catholic and non-Catholic media outlets. The Vatican Radio site, in its introduction to the document, stated in part:

 

In the mid-term report the Synod Fathers speak of how it's the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries.  They appeal to the "law of graduality," as a reflection of the way God reached out to humanity and led His people forward step by step.

 

Reaction to the report ranged from positive declarations of "a shift in tone toward gays and divorce" (New York Times) to more pessimistic assessments. Mary Jo Anderson, reporting for Catholic World Report from Rome, remarked, "The Extraordinary Synod on the Family is at its midpoint and certain degrees of separation are clear: There is a divorce over divorce, remarriage, and Communion."

Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and a contributor with four other cardinals (and four additional scholars) to the new book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press), has expressed concern over several aspects of the Synod, including the push for changes in the handling of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and the way that information about the Synod is being, in his words, "manipulated." 

Cardinal Burke responded late yesterday to questions from Carl E. Olson, editor of Catholic World Report, about his concerns, his view of the mid-term report, and why he thinks a statement from Pope Francis is "long overdue."

 

CWR: In what way is information about what is happening in the Synod being either manipulated or only partially reported and made public?

 

Cardinal Burke: The interventions of the individual Synod Fathers are not made available to the public, as has been the case in the past. All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning.

While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.
 
CWR: How is that reflected in the Synod's midterm document, released yesterday, which is being criticised by many for its appeal to a so-called "law of graduality”?

Cardinal Burke: While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.

The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary,”teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.
 
CWR: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?

Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.

The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.

 

[Cherie]

I am face palming.
People are literally discussing "How does a homosexuals personal life affect me?", "How do homosexuals affect me at work?"
Answer is: It doesnt. It doesnt affect you. Chill out, and be normal.

The fact that we have to sit here and have this discussion is why the world smells of elderberries.
This thread is giving me ebola.

Really? You don't think another person's sinful behavior affects anyone but themselves? That's ridiculous. Sin affects us all. And that's really the point of what's being discussed. Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to sin? Be relativists? Or should we just shun them completely because they're doing something that is sinful? What does the "happy medium" look like?

This is specifically referring to gay people who are actively taking part in homosexual relationships. Which is why it is a question I'm interested in, because cohabiting is basically the same thing, too.

I can't in conscience simply act like my family members cohabiting doesn't affect me or my children, because it does. And so the way to deal with this general issue - being loving and charitable, while also appropriately recognizing the moral wrong of their very public relationship - CAN be difficult.

Seriously, even an atheist can see where a Catholic would have an issue here. They might not agree with it, but they can respect that there's a quandary they're trying to deal with.

[CrossCuT]

I can't in conscience simply act like my family members cohabiting doesn't affect me or my children, because it does. 

 

Yes you can, because the personal choices of a couple who have nothing to do with your personal choices dont affect you at all. 

 

Also, none of your business.

 

 

 

If the sin of others is now public concern, I think your children should be taken away because I believe your views are harmful to them...and guess what, its totally ok for me to think that and push those views on you. Cause apparently your personal life is now public business. 

[4588686]

Your example would like us to believe that the Eucharist is contrary to reason, when it is not.   A mystery is something which is beyond/above reason but not contrary to it.  Your example is not the same. 

 

Labeling something a 'mystery' does not make it any less a wild and unfounded claim.  

 

Somebody claiming that modern number theory is an imperfect and incomplete model of the fullest and truest body of PURE MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and that, while it is not expressible with our imperfect models, 2+2 really can equal 8 in the realm of PURE MATHEMATICAL TRUTH is making no less wild a claim than your assertion that while there is no proof that God or the supernatural exists and no evidence that the bread and wine does transubstantiate that this is still the case and simply above reason.  

 

Society tolerates your wild and unfounded claims.  You'd be doing yourself a service by being a little humble with trying to use the force of law to prohibit other people from living lives that do not harm you but just happen to go against your MYSTICAL BAG-O-TRUTHS.

[Amppax]

Interesting how this issue always brings everyone back out of the woodwork.