Always at war with homosexuals

[superblue]

Homosexualism--is that a new noun?  Saying that" 'homosexualism' is anathema to Christian civilization" is a pretty sweeping statement.  There are many Protestant and Anglican churches which now bless and marry same sex couples.  They--the churches--are widely viewed as Christian.  There are countries overwhelmingly Catholic, such as Ireland, Spain, and Belgium (well, northern Belgium) which have main same-sex marriage legal.

No one says that any church, any denomination, any collection of people holding religious services, has to marry or bless any same-sex union, or accept openly gay persons as members. The issue is one for civil unions only.

To be openly homophopic is not acceptable in today's society, outside of Uganda.  It's equated with racism. 

One can certainly post one's opinions on Phat, on the Debate phorum or perhaps Open Mic,  but I think that posting homophopic opinions as a postulant of an ancient and much-respected religious order, does not reflect well on the person, or possibly his supervisors.

[Yaatee]

When corporations hire these days, they look up a serious applicant's name in the social media. So do admissions officers at competitive colleges and universities. They want to see what the applicant is *really* like.  Many applicants to choice schools, with A averages and high ACT/SAT scores have been turned down after evidence turned up on the social media that the applicant had another side which might not reflect well on themselves or the institution/corporation.

I don't know when/if religious orders are going to do the same thing, but I would be very surprised if men's orders especially aren't looking up their applicants on the social media.  I would keep this in mind when any discerner or applicant who is permitted to the internet posts online. Just sayin'.

[Yaatee]

 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been to an average Sunday Mass in northern Belgium? I have. Of all people below 50 only a few percent attends Mass. Of all these Masses all but a few percent are outright heretical, in content if not form. Believe me, it's even worse than the average Sunday Mass in the U.S. 

Newspapers, schools, civil society associations, even sport clubs which were once full of the Catholic spirit, have literally turned against the Faith, propagating homosexualism at every opportunity and spreading outright lies on what the Church has always taught on science, marriage, miracles, etc. etc. If the Faith played any role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, it was negatively, in the sense of 'let us not waste time in removing the last shackles of Catholic control over our sex and family lives.'

It's a case of corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst of all. 

How are the masses heretical?  

It is sad that RC has lost its churches and congregations, for many reasons.  But these countries were RC's to lose, through tolerance and hiding of the pedophilia epidemic, among other things.  In the US, RC lost huge numbers of its congregants after Humanae Vitae, in Europe probably as well.  Before this, and when I grew up, the RC church was a monolith.  Some falling away would have happened in any case, but in other churches, ie., the evangelicals and the Mormons, this has not happened.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Yaatee

[Nihil Obstat]

Is it my imagination, or does it seem true that everyone who says "RC" when they mean the Catholic Church typically does not believe anything the Church teaches?

[PhuturePriest]

Is this going to be another never-ending gay debate?

Unfortunately, no. Nothing will ever match the greatness of that thread, and that thread will sadly only live on in our memories. 

Once something is on the internet it's on there forever my foot. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Yaatee]

Is it my imagination, or does it seem true that everyone who says "RC" when they mean the Catholic Church typically does not believe anything the Church teaches?

No. It's just shorthand.  I often write "Catholic Church", but it was late and I was getting ready for bed. I always proofread everything I write, correcting the numerous typos and editing it, so I shortened the reference.

I think that it's closer to say that "RC" is often used by non-Catholics.

 

I just corrected "that". I wrote "tht".  And added a comma behind "Catholic Church". 

[Yaatee]

 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been to an average Sunday Mass in northern Belgium? I have. Of all people below 50 only a few percent attends Mass. Of all these Masses all but a few percent are outright heretical, in content if not form. Believe me, it's even worse than the average Sunday Mass in the U.S. 

Newspapers, schools, civil society associations, even sport clubs which were once full of the Catholic spirit, have literally turned against the Faith, propagating homosexualism at every opportunity and spreading outright lies on what the Church has always taught on science, marriage, miracles, etc. etc. If the Faith played any role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, it was negatively, in the sense of 'let us not waste time in removing the last shackles of Catholic control over our sex and family lives.'

It's a case of corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst of all. 

Catlick,  you have written quite a few sweeping statements here.  Are you heretical yourself, by any chance, such as ...SSPX?   Follower of Lefebvre?

I think that the Church (see? Not "RC") has made itself very clear about its views about science, marriage, miracles "etc.etc".  The Church (again...) is very forward-looking regarding science (ref. "Laudato Si") and its attitude towards miracles is also very clear--you don't have to believe them, especially apparitions, but you much accept that the Church does recognize some miracles, as in those recognized in canonizations. 

It will be interesting to see what the upcoming synod says about blessing same-sex marriages and long-time gay or straight committed relationships of which there are very many  throughout Europe, involving all Catholic (such as Polish Old Catholic, in addition to RC, of course), Anglican, Lutheran and other protestant denominations.  Very interesting.

[Catlick]

Catlick,  you have written quite a few sweeping statements here.  Are you heretical yourself, by any chance, such as ...SSPX?   Follower of Lefebvre?

I think that the Church (see? Not "RC") has made itself very clear about its views about science, marriage, miracles "etc.etc".  The Church (again...) is very forward-looking regarding science (ref. "Laudato Si") and its attitude towards miracles is also very clear--you don't have to believe them, especially apparitions, but you much accept that the Church does recognize some miracles, as in those recognized in canonizations.

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. But to answer your question: I am not a member of SSPX, and would not be even if I were a priest (for your information - you seem uninformed on SSPX - the Society only has priests as members.)

Regarding the Church having made itself clear 'about its views about science' etc., well, yes - I don't contest that. You read things that I have never written. 

The Masonic atheistic elite in Belgium generally knows well what the Church says on things like marriage - quite a lot of its members has received a good education from the Jesuits. They know that the Church will not change her stance on the indissolubility of marriage, that as soon as a Bishop recognizes divorce in his diocese his decision his no authority for the faithful and they cannot follow. They know this because they've received a top Jesuit education, serve as professor of canon law, or are ordained but apostate priests. Believe me, there are plenty such people filling the opinion pages of the Belgian newspapers. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Catlick

[Yaatee]

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. But to answer your question: I am not a member of SSPX, and would not be even if I were a priest (for your information - you seem uninformed on SSPX - the Society only has priests as members.)

Regarding the Church having made itself clear 'about its views about science' etc., well, yes - I don't contest that. You read things that I have never written. 

The Masonic atheistic elite in Belgium generally knows well what the Church says on things like marriage - quite a lot of its members has received a good education from the Jesuits. They know that the Church will not change her stance on the indissolubility of marriage, that as soon as a Bishop recognizes divorce in his diocese his decision his no authority for the faithful and they cannot follow. They know this because they've received a top Jesuit education, serve as professor of canon law, or are ordained but apostate priests. Believe me, there are plenty such people filling the opinion pages of the Belgian newspapers. 

When I asked, "Are you SSPX?" I meant, "Do you follow SSPX?  Do you attend mass only at SSPX churches, etc.?"

I read posts about Belgian priests and one bishop in particular arguing to bless same-sex unions.  I don't know how much farther it goes than that.   As I posted, the synod will have interesting things to say.

I love the way the word "heresy" is thrown around on this forum.  Funny, the pope doesn't appear to use that word very often, not even Benedict, or John Paul.

Another thing interesting about the forum is that people choose to post, often at great length, but say little about themselves.  No background.  I have put plenty on my fact sheet, and  I am quite sure no one could find me (except the moderators, maybe).

What do the Masons have to do with it? I f the priests are "apostate"--another word thrown around the forum--why isn't the Vatican doing something about it?  When Benedict was pope, say.  Or John Paul.  Francis has more important things to do, apparently, like call the synod.

You didn't answer my question.

[Peace]

SSPX is not heretical, the Vatican recognizes that. 

Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists.

Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive.

[Nihil Obstat]

Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists.

Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive.

But it is perfectly obvious that they are not heretics.

[puellapaschalis]

I read posts about Belgian priests and one bishop in particular arguing to bless same-sex unions.  I don't know how much farther it goes than that.   As I posted, the synod will have interesting things to say.

There is much that has gone on, and still takes place, in the Dutch and Belgian provinces that would make a decent Catholic's hair stand on end. We ought to pray for the decent bishops and priests - they are not many and their lives are made very difficult, not just by non-Catholics but also by the non-Catholics (sic) within the Church.

[Catlick]

Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists.

Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive.

Well, there's an argument from... cooperation, for lack of a better term. Recently Mgr. Fellay has been named judge in a Church court dealing with a SSPX-priest allegedly guilty of sexual abuse.

Also, what Catholic dogma does SSPX reject? 

[Peace]

But it is perfectly obvious that they are not heretics.

Well. Maybe it is obvious to you. I do not know that they are heretical. But I do not see why they should be given the benefit of the doubt any more so than any other protestant group. Do the works that they publish get the "Nihil Obstat"?

It appears to me that they are in schism, although the Church has not formally declared it out of what appears to be a hope to bring them back within the fold. And I was under the impression that they teach their followers that the new mass is invalid and that they should not attend it. I do not see any good reason why any group that for all practical purposes is in schism should be assumed to be orthodox. For what reason should they be given the benefit of the doubt when they reject Vatican II and when they reject the authority of the Pope (for all practical purposes)?

[Nihil Obstat]

You should do a bit more homework first. Very little of what you said is both correct and relevant in this case.

[Catlick]

For what reason should they be given the benefit of the doubt when they reject Vatican II (..)?

Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. 

[Peace]

You should do a bit more homework first. Very little of what you said is both correct and relevant in this case.

I take it that you disagree with what I wrote?

[Peace]

Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. 

Yes. It is possible that they are not heretical. As you will note - I have not asserted that they are heretics. As I wrote - I do not know whether or not they are. And I do not see any reason to give a group that is borderline-schismatic the benefit of the doubt. Again - why should I?

You have made a positive assertion that they are not heretical. The person who makes a positive assertion carries the burden to provide evidence that the assertion is true. If you have any affirmative evidence (as opposed to an argument from silence) I am open to considering it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I take it that you disagree with what I wrote?

A few of your points and a few of what seem to be initial assumptions on your part.

[Nihil Obstat]

Actually the positive claim on the existence of heresy is your own. In the Church as with criminal law they would be presumed innocent of heresy unless proven otherwise. That would be your job. One cannot positively assert a negative. That is a painful abuse of language proof and logic.