Posted on 07/24/2012 9:08:03 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
As so often happens, Mrs. Don-o nails it to the wall and sticks a smiley post-it on there for emphasis.
I've been reading this thread, though I haven't responded before now, because the adjective "diabolical" is absolutely key, in my opinion. The belief that drives the call for contraception is that God made us wrong, that He is not a loving Father who wants only our good, but a tyrant who wishes to deny us what is for our good. You'll recall that fallen Seraph - who has done so much harm to innocent ophidians over the millenia - making this point to ditzy Eve.
The Supreme Court has written "God made us wrong" into the fundamental laws of our country: the "Casey" decision said that nonprocreative sex is an absolute right, and that any means necessary to ensure it is protected by "the Constitution" as presently understood.
I'm open to argument/correction on this, but it also seems to me that this is an attack directed mainly at women. Of course, reason tells us that if women were created wrong, so were men, but it is women who become pregnant and have babies. These outcomes, defined as medical and social pathologies by our government, simply don't happen to men. I wonder if the fact that most women spend nearly their entire lives in an environment of "There's something wrong with you. You are a problem. Your existence in your natural state is an enemy to be fought againt," has anything to do with the depression, lack of self-respect, and destructive choices that are so common for women these days.
Indeed.
And for good reason.
Scandal is a sin.
No. It was the Archbishop's funeral.
Uh-huh...
These folks sang the songs the Archbishop chose to be sung,.....
Right. That's why the Cathedral has a choir. To sing. It usually does so at funerals of prominent churchmen. Telling it to stand down in favor of the "Gay Men's Chorus" is neither a neutral nor an insignificant gesture.
... else they were quite and respectful of the occassion.
You mean they didn't shout "we're here, we're queer and we're not going shopping"?? That's nice of them.
Pride parades are celebrations of open, unrepentant homos.
Yes they are.
So are organizations which are composed exclusively of homosexual men and which self-identify as "gay". Such groups are dedicated to furthering the proposition that the "gay" lifestyle is not abnormal and is worthy of our esteem. They are most certainly not dedicated to the furtherance of Catholic teaching, which is that sodomy is gravely sinful and damnable. No organization which self-identifies as "gay" accepts that proposition nor is it directed to promoting "celibacy" among those afflicted with same sex attraction. It is dedicated to promoting acceptance of same-sex attraction and ipso facto is in direct conflict with Catholic dogma.
Not all homosexual agitprop is blatant, like a gay pride parade. Some is subtle and therefore more insidious. A choir of "gay" male voices falls into the latter category, just so a "gay" theater troupe or a "gay" motorcycle club. In addition to showing an apparently reasonable and attractive side to "gay" culture, these groups also act as self-affirmation organizations, whereby the members provide morale-boosting support for each other's life-styles, as well as being a place where one can meet a potential partner.
As for your Scripture quote, you forgot the one where Jesus says....."go and sin no more." That doesn't sit well with the "gay" community. Its whole ethos is dedicated to maintaining the "gay" lifestyle, not repenting of it.
The Church is more than happy to eat with tax-collectors and sinners but when the sinners tell us that sin is not really sin, that's where the meal ends and we leave the restaurant.
Wow! Catholic teaching in a nutshell.
"... That's nice of them."
They were either respectful of the occasion, or they weren't.
"Scandal is a sin."
Scandal is in the eyes of the beholder. The Cardinal didn't see it the way you do; neither did God with His example.
"organizations which are composed exclusively of homosexual men"
The Chorus is and was always open to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
"insidious. A choir of "gay" male voices"
You'd think someone that was at the Mass would have complained.
"The Church is more than happy to eat with tax-collectors and sinners but when the sinners tell us that sin is not really sin, that's where the meal ends and we leave the restaurant."
What happened to your Church authority, your Magesterium and Pope? You are attempting to overrule a Cardinal! Have you been eating YIPIOS?
"As for your Scripture quote, you forgot the one where Jesus says....."go and sin no more."
I forgot nothing.
Oh they were. Totally. They dressed well, sang nicely, smiled at everyone and then departed the scene to continue their campaign against the Catholic Church. That's what I call "respect".
I'm sure the "Gay Men's Chorus" is well versed in the finer points of exterior decorum.
Now if only they were respectful of the Church. Not the same thing, of course. When Castro or Chavez meet the Pope, they're respectful of the "occasion". It's the Church with which they have a problem.
Scandal is in the eyes of the beholder.
Well, no.
Scandal is a word or action, evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
The Cardinal didn't see it the way you do;
Clearly.
neither did God with His example.
Ahhh.....an authoritative proclamation from on high.
The Chorus is and was always open to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Oh....so it's not really....er....."gay"?? The name is meaningless?
Then why call it "The Gay Men's Chrous"?
You'd think someone that was at the Mass would have complained.
ROFL......plenty has been written about this little episode, believe me, including by some who were present.
What happened to your Church authority, your Magesterium and Pope? You are attempting to overrule a Cardinal! Have you been eating YIPIOS?
You're flailing.
If you knew anything about Bernardin or the Magisterium, you'd know that Bernardin expended considerable energy throughout his ministry opposing the Magisterium and his invitation to the "Gay Men's Chorus" to sing at his funeral was his final, defiant gesture. Unsurprising and entirely in keeping with his previous actions.
Every orthodox Catholic I know comprehends this. Which calls into question spunky's orthodoxy and agenda, IMHO.
" Well, no. Scandal is a word or action, evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
What I said is correct. The universal, objective definition of scandal is independent of "spiritual ruin" and depends absolutely on the prior beliefs and values of the beholder. Neither the Church nor The Harper Valley PTA has a patent on the definition of scandal.
Re: neither did God with His example.
"Ahhh.....an authoritative proclamation from on high."
Not a proclamation, an example of behavior from the Person Christian folks call Lord.
"why call it "The Gay Men's Chrous"?"
That's a gay question.
"ROFL......plenty has been written about this little episode, believe me, including by some who were present."
No kidding? Any links to those musical reviews?
"If you knew anything about Bernardin or the Magisterium, you'd know that Bernardin expended considerable energy throughout his ministry opposing the Magisterium "
Cardinal Bernardin was installed by the members of that organization, including the Pope. I believe he led the USCCB. That would mean he led them, not opposed them.
I believe he was a gentle pious man that empathized with the poor and brought the beatitudes to life. I'm sure his choice of Chorus was based on that and not defiance.
The subject of this thread is the filthy defamation of the man. No evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass, was a homo, engaged in homosexulality, promoted homosexuality, or became ordained to perform satanic rituals for promises of "fantastic gay sex". Do you have any such evidence?
“I believe he was a gentle pious man that empathized with the poor and brought the beatitudes to life....”
Mebbe.... Mebbe not. See “Windswept House” Malachi Martin...which is a”fictionalized” review of the AmChurch
The character of Cardinal Leonardine BTW...is Bernardine. And is either diabolically accurate or diabolically contrived.
**Defamation of the man**
Do you have a cross to burn here?
Are you his relative?
What gives?
Orthodox Catholics don't believe in the Pope and they don't share many of your Roman doctrines. Cardinal Bernardin was installed by the Magisterium, including the Pope and was one of their leaders. I forgot his name et al have been ordered by his Bishop to cease using the word Catholic to describe their defamation business, a business that defames Popes also.
Either the Church's Magisterium means something, or it don't. Some apostolic succession the Church has, when a lay bunch of clown fools running a defamation business claim a higher moral authority than the Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and priests do in their org.
Fiction is fiction.
"The character of Cardinal Leonardine BTW...is Bernardine. And is either diabolically accurate or diabolically contrived."
There's a simple solution:=> Got evidence?
"Are you his relative?"He is my brother.
"What gives?
The defamation program. It appears to be built on sand.
“His last book, ‘Windswept House,’ for example, was 80 percent factual, by Malachi’s own admission to me,” Fr. Fiore said. “Many of his works were that accurate.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1136142/posts
This ain't evidence of the allegations made against Cardinal Bernardin. The statement is meaningless. Fiction is fiction regardless of whether, or not the sky was said to be blue somewhere in it.
Got evidence?
It’s not built on sand. We have facts, and many have been posted on different threads.
I wonder if you understand how Catholics think here??
You still didn’t answer my question — perhaps you are one of Bernardin’s boys?
If you had evidence, you could present it. When such filthy allegations as have been made and posted here are made, they must be accompanied by real hard evidence supporting said claims.
Do you have evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass, was a homo, engaged in homosexulality, promoted homosexuality, or became ordained to perform satanic rituals for promises of "fantastic gay sex". Do you have any such evidence? If so present it!
Thought is either rational, or it's not. All else is irrelevant.
I suspect the “evidence” (which way BTW-”for” or “against” the Cardinal) you demand is probably not available outside the confessional...but if you’re truly interested you could start with Matt Abbott’s discussion about the circle the good padre ran with and the various facts and allegations therein...none of which are particularly clerical
Rationalism, and its close cousin modernism, are considered heresies by the Church. When one breaks down the essential difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, we see that the breakdown lies between reason derived from faith for the Catholic, and faith determined by reason for the Protestant. The Catholic believes God based on the living authority and living Voice (The Holy Spirit) He gave to those chosen to spread the Gospel. The Catholic believes that man has the capacity to comprehend the infallible Word of God by his reason, but his reason does not determine what he will and will not believe. Faith is an act of the will.
The Protestantism which puts man’s intellect and individual rational capacity above and before faith. Most Protestants will not believe what does not make sense to them. Although most Protestants will profess Sola Fide, it is not really faith in God they are living by, but only faith in themselves and their cognitive abilities. For the Catholic, faith precedes reason, for the Protestant, reason precedes faith.
Simply put, the Protestant takes God’s Written Word and attempts as best as he can to determine what it means for him, and then put his faith in what he has determined. He bases his faith off of what he reads in and into the Scriptures and determines for himself the doctrines he will believe. This is completely the opposite of Catholicism position, which simply listens to God’s voice speaking through His one and only Church, and then seeks to understand that faith by his reason.
Peace be with you
There could never be any evidence for the Cardinal, because evidence for something that never happened, or don't exist, ect... can not possibly exist. Otherwise, it is an explicit sin against your neighbor to fling filthy allegations and then claim the "evidence" is hidden, or was somehow lost. ie. "the dog ate my evidence, then he died".
"Matt Abbott’s discussion about the circle the good padre ran with...
Ah ha! Guilt by association. Selective association at that, because "the good padre" was the head and leader of the USCCB, a member appointed by and in good standing amongst the Magisterium and the Pope. That don't matter with Mr. Abbott though, since Mr. Abbott's will was not honored, YOPIOS notwithstanding. All that matters with Mr. Abbott and whats his name et al, is that Cardinal Bernardin is defamed in the most heinous way.
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.