Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Brief History of Same-Sex Marriage and Why Catholics Are Losing the War Against It
Catholic World Report ^ | February 13, 2014 | Carrie Gress

Posted on 02/14/2014 4:07:38 PM PST by NYer

Larry Lamont and Jerry Slater take part in a symbolic same-sex marriage ceremony outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh Feb. 4. The Scottish Parliament passed a bill that will allow same-sex marriages to be performed later this year, but religious organizations have the right not to perform them. (CNS photo/Russell Cheyne, Reuters)

Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture, clime, or era is a fruitless search. It has never been proposed, not even in ancient Greece, as some would like to argue. So why does this enigma of history seem like just the next progressive step in our own culture?

The answer, oddly enough, seems to be locked up in the birth control pill. Let me explain.

Healthy cultures and civilizations all have one thing in common. There is a deep understanding (even if not always acted upon or articulated) that my life has meaning because of the sacrifices I make for those who come after me, through loyalty to a clan, tribe or wider society. This simple "our lives for theirs" approach is what has animated history for centuries. Think of the building of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which the early masons knew would never be finished in their lifetimes. "Our lives for theirs" is an easy barometer to see if a civilization is on the rise or on decline. When that order becomes inverted, like ancient Rome or late Renaissance Venice, where each man and woman lives just for himself, the civilization will decay and cease to exist.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s is a marked example of this inversion in the West with the arrival of the pill. Never in the history of the world had the fundamental link between human sexuality and reproduction been so decidedly unhinged, ushering in a new conception of sexuality. Sex became about many things: self-expression, self-gratification, exploration, desire, etc.…but not about its main reason for existence: to propagate the species. The general "our life for theirs" attitude lived out by parents for centuries suddenly became suspect as self-gratification came into vogue. "Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves through all that hard work to raise more than two children?" became the new model under which we live today.

While contraception of various sorts was nothing new, the wholesale use of it was. Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery. Denuding sex of its natural procreative character made sex simply about "me," not my spouse, my children, my family, or my community. Porn, "twerking," and the over-sexualization of young children are only the latest additions in the "sex is about me" trajectory.

Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was the first to argue for the link between what we find pleasurable and what is needed for a healthy polis, or more generally, society. An act was pleasurable to ensure that it would take place, but was not the most important reason for the action. Food tastes good so we will eat. The connection between sexual pleasure and procreation is why same-sex marriage has never been accepted in the history of the world before. It was always generally understood that such a "marriage" is not fruitful no matter what the feelings may be of those involved.

Generations of couples coupling without conceiving have led to the misperception that sexuality is, in fact, merely another contact sport, or whatever else you may want it to be, without a fixed meaning other than pleasure. Sex in the minds of most no longer has any natural link with making babies. And if the link dares to happen biologically when nature asserts herself, it is a failure, a mistake, an accident – not the natural course of things.

How, then, one asks, could Catholics be so cruel to want to deny same-sex marriage to those who just have a different idea about sex? Why limit ourselves to heterosexual activity within marriage? Can't pleasure and satisfaction be found elsewhere? Well, clearly they can, to a degree. But babies cannot. And the stable families necessary to raise healthy children, study after study has shown, cannot be reformulated into any shape of laissez-faire family. Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."

Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last
Carrie Gress has a doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of America. She has worked as the Rome Bureau Chief of Zenit's English Edition and a Junior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, serving as the assistant to George Weigel. She lives with her husband and three children in Virginia.
1 posted on 02/14/2014 4:07:38 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 02/14/2014 4:08:03 PM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

We’re just losing a battle. The war has been won. This is mop-up.


3 posted on 02/14/2014 4:18:22 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Same-sex marriages are not a new idea just created in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, and never before thought of.

In fact, it has been thought of a LOT over the millennia, going back to the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, and no doubt for a while before that. And almost always, this upsurge in these “situational ethics” becomes strongest just as the fabric of the dominant societies is being torn apart.

Cause-and-effect there, or is this fascination with deviancy just a symptom of a much deeper rot? Either way, the decay continues to feed upon this leniency and licentious behavior.


4 posted on 02/14/2014 4:19:58 PM PST by alloysteel (Obamacare - Death and Taxes now available online. One-stop shopping at its best!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
stated all very well.....like the traditional priest distraught over the closing down of old parishes because....THERE ARE NO CHILDREN.....

having children is a duty....because each generation depends on the other generations....that young nurse or therapist assisting you to the Bathroom is there because she/he was born...

what do we do when we have no young people?

5 posted on 02/14/2014 4:23:57 PM PST by cherry (.in the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Same-sex marriages are not a new idea just created in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, and never before thought of.

Actually it has not. Homosexuality was considered separate from marriage, even in Greek society where men had sex with boys (the traditional homosexual activity).

6 posted on 02/14/2014 4:34:39 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture, clime, or era is a fruitless search.

What worries me is the meaning of this historical detail. I suspect that a better statement is: "Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture that survived long enough to be noted by historians is a fruitless search."

7 posted on 02/14/2014 4:41:45 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
According to Suetonius, Nero went through with a same-sex marriage.

"He had the testicles cut off of a boy named Sporus, and attempted to transform him into a woman, marrying him with dowry and bridal veil and all due ceremony, then, accompanied by a great crowd, taking him to his house, where he treated him as his wife. Someone made the rather clever joke which is still told that it would have been a good thing for humanity if Nero's father had taken such a wife. This Sporus, decked out in the ornaments of an empress and carried in a litter, he took with him around the meeting places and markets of Greece and later, at Rome, around the Sigillaria, kissing him from time to time." (Nero, ch. 28. Trans. by Catharine Edwards, Oxford World's Classics)

Even the Romans in their most decadent period thought that was preposterous.

8 posted on 02/14/2014 4:42:33 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sorry. All of the fancy verbiage to make homosexuality simply a “reaction to the self-centeredness of society” is once again Rome missing the mark. Homosexuality is simply sin.

Go read Romans 1 & 2. Homosexuality is just an extremely graphic expression of the brokenness of man (equal to being disobedient to parents, murder, etc.). It is sin and until we say so plainly, articles like this will continue to misrepresent the way God looks at the way men live.


9 posted on 02/14/2014 4:42:45 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; metmom
The sexual revolution of the 1960s is a marked example of this inversion in the West with the arrival of the pill. Never in the history of the world had the fundamental link between human sexuality and reproduction been so decidedly unhinged, ushering in a new conception of sexuality. Sex became...

It became another form of idolatrous rebellion against God, by gratification of the glands outside of the life-long commitment which provides the secure context for it and for the normal result, children.

Homosexual relations and its "marriage" is a progression of that idolatrous rebellion, and the rest of the marks of moral decline will increasingly become evident.

America is in Romans 1 .

10 posted on 02/14/2014 4:46:58 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bboop

“We’re just losing a battle. The war has been won. This is mop-up.”

Says who? Just because you shout the loudest doesn’t mean you won the fight. That’s what AIDS is for as it can thin the herd.


11 posted on 02/14/2014 4:51:39 PM PST by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bboop

“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


12 posted on 02/14/2014 4:52:52 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control.

Accelerated with the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control.

Rocketed with the acceptance of no-fault divorce.


13 posted on 02/14/2014 5:00:59 PM PST by lightman (O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, giving to Thy Church vict'ry o'er Her enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping


14 posted on 02/14/2014 5:07:59 PM PST by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nothing new here. Why would Leviticus mention the abomination?


15 posted on 02/14/2014 5:13:23 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
***Even the Romans in their most decadent period thought that was preposterous. **

And in film...Ain't "she" cute? >/P>

<>

16 posted on 02/14/2014 5:25:59 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”

—Pope Leo XIII, 1880

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

He warned about the danger of the state defining marriage 130+ years ago. To the state, it simply is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it can be at any one time.

Freegards, thanks for all the pings on FR


17 posted on 02/14/2014 5:44:39 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lightman

All of this needs to be repeated.

**Slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control.

Accelerated with the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control.

Rocketed with the acceptance of no-fault divorce.**


18 posted on 02/14/2014 5:48:45 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

I wonder if poor Sporus was a willing participant in all of this. Nero, what a role model!


19 posted on 02/14/2014 6:06:43 PM PST by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thanks for posting. There’s a lot to think about, not neccessarily what people want to hear, but what they need to hear.


20 posted on 02/14/2014 6:10:56 PM PST by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; daniel1212
Slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control.

I disagree.

The slippery slope began before that.

Actions always follow thoughts. The acceptance of birth control (if you believe it is evil) and abortion (which IS evil) is a RESULT of the moral decline, not the cause of it.

It's simply not possible for those two things to cause moral decline because they wouldn't exist in a moral society, therefore the moral decline began in the hearts of man before the signs and symptoms of it appeared in man's life.

21 posted on 02/14/2014 6:20:31 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

So the Pope was supporting Mormon and Islamic polygamy in America in 1880, that is interesting.


22 posted on 02/14/2014 6:24:55 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media.

I would guess it's not up to any of you to educate yourselves...It's up to the priests, cardinals and bishops to educate you...

Y'all claim that your religion teaches that artificial contraception is bad...Well it does not teach that...Your teachers aren't teaching that at all...You ought to put the blame where it belongs...

And contraception is responsible for queers??? I'll tell you what's responsible for queers...A single priest can recruit hundreds of young boys into the homo lifestyle...And each one of those that grows up to be a priest can recruit hundreds more...

The question is: why isn't the Catholic religion teaching what it professes to teach???

23 posted on 02/14/2014 6:42:51 PM PST by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
4 Same-sex marriages are not a new idea just created in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, and never before thought of. ...

Well said.

Timeline of LGBT History

24 posted on 02/14/2014 7:03:01 PM PST by MacNaughton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
There have always been sinners. Always will be.
Homosexuality is just another sin...an icky one to my thinking, but no worse than other mortal sins.
25 posted on 02/14/2014 7:45:50 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

No, gay marriage is new. Buggery is very old. Marriage between buggerers is a completely new idea.


26 posted on 02/14/2014 7:58:29 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MacNaughton; alloysteel

“Well said.”

It was? Where in your linked to timeline do you see gay marriage being practiced?


27 posted on 02/14/2014 8:03:50 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Well it does not teach that...”

Yes, it does - see the Catechism. See Humani Vitae.

“Your teachers aren’t teaching that at all...”

Yes, some are, while others aren’t. Fifty years ago ALL were. One day, again, it will be ALL.

“You ought to put the blame where it belongs...”

I do. I blame the world, the flesh and the devil. They gave us Protestantism which made all of this possible.


28 posted on 02/14/2014 8:06:29 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was the first to argue for the link between what we find pleasurable and what is needed for a healthy polis, or more generally, society. An act was pleasurable to ensure that it would take place, but was not the most important reason for the action.

For instance, pummeling a libtard with a lead pipe could be considered pleasurable, but that isn't the most important reason for the action.

29 posted on 02/14/2014 8:57:04 PM PST by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Iscool
I do. I blame the world, the flesh and the devil. They gave us Protestantism which made all of this possible.

Blame shifting 101. It's everyone else's fault, not ours.

Sounds like the gates of hell ARE prevailing against the RCC because the leaders are LETTING it.

It IS their responsibility that it's not being taught any more. Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of those cardinals, bishops, and priests who are not teaching the CCC.

No. It's YOUR church leaders not teaching what the official doctrine of the Catholic church is that is the problem.

Man up and own it.

30 posted on 02/15/2014 2:29:06 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Blame shifting 101. It's everyone else's fault, not ours. Sounds like the gates of hell ARE prevailing against the RCC because the leaders are LETTING it.

Indeed. Catholics are even more liberal than Protestants in general, and even weekly Catholics are less conservative than fundamental evangelicals. And the latter represents classic Protestantism far more than its liberal counterpart, which are overall more like Catholicism!

But consider the source. Those who uphold the Spanish Inquisition, and likewise that if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with their assertions, then they must be incompetent, have already marginalized themselves as not worthy of response.

And as for the devil, one that of the things which characterizes doctrines of demons is forbidding to marry. (1Tim. 4:1-3)

Which in Rome, contrary to Scripture, is a church law that makes being celibate the norm among RC clergy (besides hiereus never being used to title NT pastors), which presumes they all have that gift. (1Cor. 7:)

And among those who sppsdly have that gift, a combined 15 percent of the clergy identified themselves as "gay (9%) or more on the homosexual side (6%)." Among younger priests a combined 23 percent did so.

17 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. - www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf

31 posted on 02/15/2014 5:38:04 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Blame shifting 101. It’s everyone else’s fault, not ours.”

No. Logic. How much sin would there be without the world, the flesh, and the devil? 1 John 2:15-17; 1 Peter 5:8,9 None among human beings because there would be any human beings. Are all Protestants here public school drop outs?

“Sounds like the gates of hell ARE prevailing against the RCC because the leaders are LETTING it.”

You must be talking about Royal Crown Cola (RCC). And human beings fail. The Church doesn’t.

“It IS their responsibility that it’s not being taught any more.”

Exactly - many of them now act like Protestants. Hence, the problem.

“Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of those cardinals, bishops, and priests who are not teaching the CCC.”

Actually someone is, but they should be willing to be martyred anyway rather than act like Protestants.

“No. It’s YOUR church leaders not teaching what the official doctrine of the Catholic church is that is the problem.”

Agreed - because too many of them act like Protestants.

“Man up and own it.”

I do - our problem is too much Protestantism.


32 posted on 02/15/2014 5:40:45 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

It’s not Protestantism. It’s Modernism. The Church has been infected with it since just before Vatican II.


33 posted on 02/15/2014 5:46:45 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: piusv

“It’s not Protestantism. It’s Modernism.”

Protestantism and Modernism are overlapping and the former leads to the latter.

“The Church has been infected with it since just before Vatican II.”

False. The Catholic Church has been infected with modernists since the late 19th century - hence Pascendi dominici gregis was issued in 1907 not 1957.


34 posted on 02/15/2014 6:42:08 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: piusv

“Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.” Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39.

“The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty, and in their ideas and action to be guided by the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the teaching of their Protestant masters, would like the suppression of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed according to their principles?” Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 38.

See that? “echoing the teaching of their Protestant masters”.

Protestantism gave birth to Modernism. If Catholics wouldn’t act like Protestants there wouldn’t be any Modernism in the Church. Let the Protestants keep their filthy Modernism. We don’t want it.


35 posted on 02/15/2014 6:48:56 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I can agree that they overlap. Both Modernism and Protestantism can be found in the New "Mass". And you're probably right. Modernism started infecting the Church awhile ago, but the decades prior to and including Vatican II rubber stamped it. Pascendi warned the Church, but it fell on too many deaf ears. And we still have it falling on deaf ears.

Those Bible-only protestants on this board who take issue with the Catholic Church nowadays have good reason to. I still think they are wrong in their theology, but to outright blow them off for some of their criticism of the current state of the Catholic Church and its so-called leaders is wrong as well.

And I thought I could never say that.

36 posted on 02/15/2014 6:50:33 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; metmom
If Catholics wouldn’t act like Protestants there wouldn’t be any Modernism in the Church. Let the Protestants keep their filthy Modernism.

And this is where you are wrong and metmom is correct. Individual Catholics are not to blame. The heirarchy is to blame. 100%. They are the ones, since Vatican II, who have allowed Modernism/Protestantism/false ecumenism (whatever you want to call it) into the Church. THEY are the reason why the Church is in disarray. When THEY start acting like Catholics, then MAYBE lay folks will follow.

37 posted on 02/15/2014 6:55:22 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: piusv
This is what Cardinal Mariadiaga had to say about Vatican II and Modernism!

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person

Did this guy ever read Pascendi? Does he even know what Modernism is/was?

Also, you heard it from the horse's mouth: Vatican II ended the hostilities between the Church and Modernism. Tell me why there should ever be an end to that. The Church should always be against Modernism. But he's right: Vatican II now embraces it.

38 posted on 02/15/2014 7:07:20 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: piusv

“Pascendi warned the Church, but it fell on too many deaf ears.”

False. Pascendi was tremendously successful for 30 or 40 years. There were almost no notable examples of modernism to speak of in those decades.

“I still think they are wrong in their theology, but to outright blow them off for some of their criticism of the current state of the Catholic Church and its so-called leaders is wrong as well.”

And I don’t see anyone doing that. I just know where the blame lies. The heresy of Protestantism gave us the heresy of Modernism.


39 posted on 02/15/2014 7:11:55 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

And what happened after those 40 years??

Stop blaming Protestantism. The blame falls on the hierarchy. THEY allowed it to infect the Church. Full stop. And they aren’t doing anything to reverse the trend. Instead they continue to hold up Vatican II as the best thing since sliced bread. Oh “the enormous fruits” says Francis!!

Please.


40 posted on 02/15/2014 7:22:15 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: piusv

“And this is where you are wrong and metmom is correct. Individual Catholics are not to blame. The heirarchy is to blame. 100%. They are the ones,...”

Ones. Yes, INDIVIDUALS. All of the members of the hierarchy are INDIVIDUALS. They have more influence and more authority, but they are still INDIVIDUALS. The failing is theirs alone because the Church - as Christ’s Body - cannot fail.

“...since Vatican II, who have allowed Modernism/Protestantism/false ecumenism (whatever you want to call it) into the Church.”

They are not the only ones. And even if they were, they are still just individual men no matter what their influence or authority. I agree with you that they should all be better men in their vocations - as should we all be - but individuals fail, not the Church. By confusing the failings of individuals with an impossible failing of the Church you are buying into Modernism. That’s the irony of Modernism. Often those who rail against it as stemming from Vatican II or the decade before Vatican II actually are heavily infected by the Modernistic thought they condemn. The Church is indefectible. Men fail. The Church doesn’t.

“THEY are the reason why the Church is in disarray.”

They are not the only reason. It is a simplistic argument, tinged with Modernism, to claim it is only the hierarchy that is at fault.

“When THEY start acting like Catholics, then MAYBE lay folks will follow.”

Lay people could simply have stayed Catholic on their own. We have a responsibility to remain faithful even if we have shepherds who fail to do so. The simple fact is just about all Catholics failed. You included. Me included. Just blaming the hierarchy is the Modernists’ way of not taking responsibility for their own actions while discounting the mystical strength of the Church Christ founded. Don’t fall into that trap.


41 posted on 02/15/2014 7:23:52 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

The Roman Catholic church IS failing or the the laity would not be endorsing and living lifestyles forbidden by the CCC.

Those same clergy who like to take credit for how wonderful the church is when everything is going well, need to own up and take responsibility for the same church when it’s off track.

It’s part of being a leader.

The Catholic laity is off track because the Catholic hierarchy is not teaching or enforcing its doctrines as it should.

And even if the blame is to be laid at the feet of the laity, then they are at fault not only for letting it happen but embracing it.

If the church had the integrity it claims, then it doesn’t matter whether if its living in the same kind of cesspool as Sodom and Gomorrah. It wouldn’t be tainted if it didn’t let itself be tainted.

Nothing from the outside can make the heart corrupt if the heart intends to remain pure.

Jesus did it and taught on it. It’s not what goes into a man that corrupts him, it’s what comes out. Out of the heart come the issues of life. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

The problems within the Catholic church are coming from within. If they’re not, the Catholic church is weak because it’s caving to outside influences.


42 posted on 02/15/2014 7:26:28 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
mm:“Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of those cardinals, bishops, and priests who are not teaching the CCC.”

v998:Actually someone is, but they should be willing to be martyred anyway rather than act like Protestants.

Who?

43 posted on 02/15/2014 7:27:37 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; piusv
Ones. Yes, INDIVIDUALS. All of the members of the hierarchy are INDIVIDUALS. They have more influence and more authority, but they are still INDIVIDUALS. The failing is theirs alone because the Church - as Christ’s Body - cannot fail.

And if you remove the individuals, what exactly is left?

What is the church without individuals to comprise it?

If all the individuals go astray, the church has.

44 posted on 02/15/2014 7:31:51 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
And human beings fail. The Church doesn’t.

Your Church defines itself as the community of believers, the assembly (ekklesia) of all who believe in Jesus Christ; or the fellowship (koinonia) of all who are bound together by their common love for the Savior. As the kingdom (basileia), it is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies about the reign of the Messiah. And as the Mystical Body it is the communion of all those made holy by the grace of Christ. He is their invisible head and they are his visible members. These include the faithful on earth, those in purgatory who are not yet fully purified, and the saints in heaven.

As the community of unsaved believers your Church can not help but fail...Its own corrupt history and the long list of forged writings/documents that apparently make up your religious dogma are ample proof of that...

45 posted on 02/15/2014 7:38:49 AM PST by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: piusv

“And what happened after those 40 years??”

Catholics became more Protestant - and Modernism therefore spread.

“Stop blaming Protestantism.”

No. I will only blame those people or things responsible. Protestantism and Modernism are linked to say the least: “Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.” Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39.

“The blame falls on the hierarchy.”

Only some. Some of it falls on us. No matter what the hierarchy does we - the faithful - can remain faithful. Have we? And what viewpoint made us less faithful? Protestantism. Modernism.

“THEY allowed it to infect the Church. Full stop.”

No. It infected the Church because it infected the faithful. To say the hierarchy “allowed it” in such a way is actually not an explanation. That is overly simplistic and can only be believed by someone tainted by Modernism itself.

“And they aren’t doing anything to reverse the trend.”

Really? I know a bishop who is replacing Modernistic priests with new priests who are less tainted by Modernism (all the faithful are tainted by these days so no one is completely free of it). All are tainted by Modernism - which means its existence in the Church simply cannot be blamed on the hierarchy. Modernism did not start with the hierarchy. Loisy and Tyrell were not bishops. Western culture became Modernistic. There was no way to entirely stop it from infecting the faithful then.

“Instead they continue to hold up Vatican II as the best thing since sliced bread. Oh “the enormous fruits” says Francis!! Please.”:

Again we see that your problem is understanding Modernism as being somehow a product of Vatican II or its era. It existed before Vatican II - way before Vatican II. And it will exist long after Vatican II. Even if all of Vatican II were abrogated tomorrow, the old Mass (which I attend) fully restored tomorrow, every Modernist priest and bishop and theologian and school teacher somehow magically replaced the faithful would still be seriously infected with Modernism. Western culture is Modernistic. There is no escaping that fact. Protestantism gave us Modernism. As long as we have Protestantism we will have Modernism. That’s just a fact.


46 posted on 02/15/2014 7:43:45 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: metmom

See my reply to piusv.


47 posted on 02/15/2014 7:44:30 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Your Church defines itself as...”

It does? Can you post a citation to the official Catholic Church document that’s from? I think that’s just Fr. Hardon’s dictionary definition isn’t it? At the very least your definition should include this: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm


48 posted on 02/15/2014 7:49:15 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; piusv
No. It infected the Church because it infected the faithful. To say the hierarchy “allowed it” in such a way is actually not an explanation. That is overly simplistic and can only be believed by someone tainted by Modernism itself.

Whatever happened to *free will*? All of a sudden, there's no free will any more?

It didn't happen to them against their will.

They ALLOWED it.

They CHOSE it.

It's like AA. You have to admit that the problem is yours if you're going to fix it. As long as it is blame shifted away, it will NEVER be resolved but only get worse..

Admit it, otherwise the problem will continue because nobody will be held accountable for it because it's not their fault.....(insert whining here)

Poor babies.......

49 posted on 02/15/2014 7:49:17 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Whatever happened to *free will*?”

Nothing.

“All of a sudden, there’s no free will any more?”

Who said that?


50 posted on 02/15/2014 7:50:57 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson