Posted on 04/14/2009 8:51:10 AM PDT by presidio9
Two days after the 1999 Soho pub bomb, monthly Masses were launched at a Catholic convent in London, welcoming lesbian and gay Catholics, their parents and families. Unable to find a central London Catholic church, after the convent's closure, LGBT Catholics found hospitality at Soho's Anglican parish church. Increasing numbers resulted in the Masses being held twice a month. While the Diocese of Westminster might have believed that the group would fade away, it recognised that real pastoral needs were being met, converts to Catholicism were being made, and a vibrant community could offer something to the local church. In March 2007, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor invited the Soho Masses LGBT community, in contact with around 300 people overall, to transfer its services to one of Soho's Catholic parishes.
A positive grass-roots story, but the church worldwide still fails to dialogue formally with its LGBT members. Official statements reflect harsh judgements, uninformed either by increasing knowledge about human sexual diversity, or Catholic theological pluralism. The pastoral practice on the ground varies enormously. LGBT pastoral ministries operate with differing degrees of hierarchical support. The Catholic church reflects the kind of divisions seen in the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality, with some Bishops formally recognising only those groups which advocate celibacy.
Those viewing Catholicism from afar can be forgiven for assuming that the church has held its views on homosexuality for centuries. In fact, it only began to detail this teaching in a 1976 Declaration on Sexual Ethics, through the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by the present Pope. This coined an untraditional Catholic term, "intrinsic disorder" to describe homosexuality,
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Yes, but having met your husband I'm pretty sure you're not a lesbian. ;^)
It is starting to annoy me that I'm seeing liberal journalists talk about "practicing Catholics" all the time these days. You're either Catholic or you are not. The term "non-practicing Catholic" is of course an oxymoron. If you agree with most of what the Church teaches, but you don't practice the religion, that doesn't give you the right to call yourself some sort of a half-assed Catholic. That may be true in other faiths, but Catholicism is an all or none religion.
:o)
You can be gay and Catholic. I’m a sinner, and I continue to sin, and I’m a Christian. One sins as good as another at damning you to hell. Nobody’s worthy.
I know there are gays out there that didn’t choose to be gay. I think homosexuality, for lack of a better term, is a disorder. I think you can be a pedophile and be Catholic too, because pedophilia is a disorder, as is necrophilia, bestiality, et. al.
The Church needs to hate the sin but love the sinner. ELCA, the episcopals, and others want to rewrite the Bible and call buggery a ‘gimme’ sin, and let bygones be bygones.
I hope the Church has learned from sweeping homosexuality and pedophilia among clergy under the rug at this point, and is engaging its own on how best to deal with this issue, because its important. Gay people, pedophiles - they deserve salvation too - as much as any other repentant sinner.
The problem, of course, is that the societal impact of their lapses take a horrific toll on the congregation and society at large.
The Catholic Church could, and should, lead on this. They certainly learned a great deal and responded pretty well to the Reformation.
Yep. I had to rant this morning. :) It’s about homofascists behaving like a clown society. Put it in the bloggers section, not because I have a blog anywhere...I don’t...maybe shoulda put it in vanities. *shrug* Maybe should start a blog somewhere and get with the 21st century!
This should be said of Christianity in general.
However, what do you call someone that is a member of your religon, supposedly, that continues to, deliberately, do things that are, expressly, forbidden by your religon?
"Catholic theological pluralism" is within bounds set by the authentic magisterium. Of course the Church has always taught that homosexual activity is wrong and the inclination disordered, but that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, but I suppose any statements reflecting that are "uninformed" by the views of people who do not actually believe what the Church teaches.
Nancy Pelosi. Douglas Kmiec. "Devout" Catholics.
It's the usual MSM axiom: The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic."
Amazing, is it not, that in the morning of that meeting homosexuality was a recognized psychiatric disorder, and in the afternoon it was validated as an alternative lifestyle?
You can be gay and be Catholic but you can’t continue to say that if you are acting on your desires.
No, it could be said of the various Christian faiths, but not "Christianity." If you have the following three beliefs, you can call yourself a Christian in my book: That Jesus Christ was the only Son of God. That He was crucified, died, was buried and rose again. That He did these things, so that we may be free from sin, and share eternal life with Him.
After that, feel free to do what you please. Keep in mind that for hundreds of years, Catholics did not believe that any of the protestant faiths were actually practicing Christianity. The words Catholicism and Catholicism were once realitively synonymous, and Catholics talked about there being only one Cathlolic Church.
However, what do you call someone that is a member of your religon, supposedly, that continues to, deliberately, do things that are, expressly, forbidden by your religon?
I give up. Nancy Palosi? John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Rudy Giuliani? Too bad we can't burn heretics anymore, huh?
First faith, then works, but works should follow faith as surely as G*d created the universe.
In Mathew Jesus said, paraphrasing, "If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
To me that says anyone that professes to believe the things you mention should go all or nothing to do their best to live the way Christ lived.
I can't say that I have done that but I continue to strive for it.
Schizophrenic, too?
“These feelings are flaws in my inner self, and if unresisted, they would be morally wrong; but if I do not cooperate with them, neither in thought, word, or deed, they are not sins.”
These things are indeed sins. Every thought, every action, falls into one of only two categories. Faith or sin.
That said, why not proudly hateful and proudly Catholic? Or proudly pedophilic and proudly Catholic? Or proudly heroin addicted and proudly Catholic? Or proudly dishonest and proudly Catholic.
I agree with you. The author is painfully ignorant.
Me too. I doubt there's anything there that Catholics and Protestants would disagree on, though.
Hebrews 4:15 (KJV)
For we have not an high priest
who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;
but He was in all points tempted
like as we are,
yet without sin.
Certainly the liberals would applause us for doing so/sarc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.