Posted on 10/19/2013 9:21:37 AM PDT by piusv
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-obeys-govt-order-to-remove-catholic-school-teaching-on-sinfulness-of
Your arguments are errors in attribution.
The Church’s teachings on homosexuality have not changed.
This bishop knows that, but has made a judgement to accede to the state, which is wrong.
Vatican II has NOTHING to do with this.
Show me a citation in the proceedings of Vatican II that allows, supports, or promotes this behavior.
One reason I am against vouchers.
Tell the government to keep their money and you’ll run the school.
OR, tell the government the Catholic Church is walking away from the school and the government can figure out how to run it.
Don’t do it at some future date, do it NOW!
They can’t force you to run the school.
So if it is wrong and the Vatican II church believes that it is wrong, will it condemn it?
God hasn’t changed His opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Queers and bishops alike would be well advised to look into why God holds that opinion.
We ought to obey our pocketbook instead of God.
One I never thought of ,but you are right. When you invite a strange dog into your house it isn’t surprising they leave fleas.
There is no such entity as either a pre or post Vatican II church, there is only the Roman Catholic Church.
The local ordinary is responsible to spread the Gospel and the teachings of the Church.
The ordinary, in this article, appears to not be doing this job well.
Finally, a person may have same-sex attraction, but may not be engaged in sexually sinful acts. That person isn’t condemned. What is condemned, are homosexual acts, just like other illicit sexual acts.
Yes, but not often enough. If this was my bishop, I'd treat him exactly as I treat my current bishop (heh heh heh). On camera if the opportunity exists (heh heh heh).
So I ask again, if there is no such difference and nothing has changed, will the Church condemn it? Or will Francis continue to make statements that we obsess over such things like gay marriage?
I’ll be more than happy to apologize if I’m wrong, but I am going to bet that nothing happens to this bishop. Just like nothing happens to all of the bishops who continue to allow reception of communion by self-professed supporters of abortion.
Thanks for posting the article.
1) Bishops make errors. They can also sin.
2) A single bishop does not Catholic doctrine make.
3) The Church wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture. So, yeah.
The price has been negotiated and now the government and the Catholic church are in bed together.
Are you forgetting that practically every bishop in Athanasius' day (with the exception of Athanasius himself, and the Pope) either embraced or tolerated the heresy of Arianism?
Are you forgetting that every bishop in Britain (with the exception of St. John Fisher) embraced the heresy that the King was the head of the Church?
Are you forgetting that the papal bull Sublimus Dei (1537), in which Pope Paul III absolutely forbade depriving the Indian people of life, liberty, or property, was almost universally ignored by Catholics who practiced murder, slave-trading,and land-theft all over the New World territories?
You cannot paint a picture of a "pre-Vatican-II Church" in which all, or even most Catholic people, including clergy, upheld moral law in the face of overwhelming social opinion and political power. Catholic Truth may have flamed brilliantly in the minds and hearts of the saints, but as usual, the saints were in a minority and the corrupt clergy in the majority.
That's the history of the Church. Shocking, but there it is: in the clergy, most of them, prone before the State, sin abounded; only in the saints did grace superabound.
As I always tell me RCIA students, that's why the really important, and really interesting people in Catholicism are not the priests, or even the popes, but the Saints.
And martyrs.
Prepare yourself.
Here's something to think about.
All the bishops who participated in Vatican II were products of the "pre-Vatican II church". They were taught, ordained and ministered in that period when apparently everything was rosy with the Church.
The point I'm making is that the "pre-Vatican II church" gave us the "Vatican II church". These two "churches" are not mutually exclusive. They are not two distinct entities. The chaos which arose in the aftermath of Vatican II was perpetrated by men who were formed by the wonderful pre-Vatican II church.
As for the bishop mentioned in the article, his actions are hardly unprecedented. I can think of numerous examples in the "pre-Vaitcan II church" where cowardly bishops have capitulated to the secular powers, Henry VIII's England being a prime example.
Tell me of a single Catholic school in the United States that educates the students that queers live a life of sin. Just one and I might agree with you.
Of course I don’t think everything was hunky dory before Vatican II. We had heretics and bad clergy throughout the Church’s history.
However, we have never had church documents reflect something different than previous church teaching. This is the case with Vatican II. For example, how did we get from the Mohammedan Faith is false and diabolical to Muslims worship the same God as we do? Where did we go from condemning attending non-Catholic services to POPES attending and PARTICIPATING in non-Catholic services?
Now regarding the bad bishops in the past. I’m curious: what did previous popes do about them?
Matthew 22:20-21
And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”
They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb with this suggestion: perhaps it’s time for these “Catholics” to reconsider which things are God’s. Hint: just about everything in our lives and in the world is His.
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.