Posted on 11/28/2016 3:32:06 PM PST by ebb tide
Another straw man.
The Church has never excluded anyone. It has always been open to those who accept its teachings.
It is we who separate ourselves from the Church (and Jesus) by our sins freely committed. The doors of the Confessional have always been open to the contrite and repentant.
Perhaps then, the Cardinal should advise the Ope to answer the 4 questions.
Let’s see if there is full support.
The Four Cardinals posed questions that are characterized by simple YES/NO answers.
Why not just answer the questions instead of talking and talking around them? That reaction is too common in politics.
This is a pile of nonsense. Not ALL the Cardinals are with this.
I agree with you.
Mueller, Pell (although one never hears from him these days), Sarah and Ouellette are still in place, but seem to have been marginalized in practice.
Thank you, McGowen. What you say is true.
We are all left mourning loss of so many things.
For a real indication of what happened during the reign of John Paul II, bear in mind that Francis was the runner-up when Benedict was elected.
Yes, I did read that. Thank you for the reminder. It certainly takes away from the role of the Holy Spirit leading these determinations.
I don’t quite know what to think about that.
Virtually everything Bergoglio says is an ad hominem or a straw man. Virtually nothing he says is the slightest bit interesting, except as it reveals what Soros wants the Church to be saying.
Because all Bergoglio is is a politician.
He wants adulterers to be given Communion. And abortionists, also. He has the support of Wuerl, Dolan, Chaput (regarding the pro-aborts, but not the adulterers), Cupich, Gomez, etc.
The original plan was to put out Amoris—a huge load of inconsistent, unreadable crap—while making clear what he wanted the end result to be, on the ground.
He didn’t figure on anyone’s actually reading his bafflegab. But the Four Cardinal’s did, and they identified four heretical implications in AL. And they asked for Yes or No in response.
The result has been weeks of tantrums, smears, innuendo, insults, demotions, slanders. But no answers.
The answers, btw, are: no, yes, yes, yes, yes.
The request for simple yes/no answers was a brilliant move by the four cardinals to "smoke" them out!
The Catholic Church should allow married clergy. In fact this is allowed in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church and even encouraged in the Orthodox Church.
Such an action would go far towards flushing out homosexual priests.
However, in some Protestant churches that allow married ministers, homosexual ministers are still a serious problem.
Christianity as a whole is an interconnected organism. When there are problems in one Christian denomination, these tend to pop up also as problems in others.
While homosexuality can be a genetic issue, a great many homosexuals acquire this vice through exposure to it and permitting openly homosexual ministers and priests creates a broodery for new recruits to this vice as these openly homosexual individuals proselytize their aberrant lifestyle.
In my opinion, you can’t be a Christian if you reject Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality, reject the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman, support and promote abortion except in very limited circumscribed instances, reject the personality and existence of Satan, reject the reality of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and question the immortality of the soul or the existence of a Supreme Being and Christ as God or reject the acceptance of the Bible as the prime source of religious direction. I think all of those qualifications apply to nearly all Christian denominations as followed from the inception of Christianity through the early and mid 1900s.
I think the ultimate sin is abortion. Once a sperm and egg unite, you have a human being. Hence, it may deny the opportunity of salvation for a human soul, which is the main purpose of existence.
I agree with most all that you say.. not that you need my agreement. LOL.
The Church is following the model of the Old Testament and of Jesus in the New Testament. Some priests are married, as you probably know, but if priests are devout and praying The Office six times a day, baptizing, marrying, visiting all the ill in the parish, counseling converts, counseling the troubled, running the parish business and the schools, meeting with the Parish Counsel and the Altar Society and the youth, it is virtually impossible to manage a healthy marriage.
I realize that the world does not look at the nuts and bolts of the demands on priests, and many priests are loyal to their vows and do willingly take up that cross. Many others are social gadflies and do not. Nevertheless, the New Testament lays out the poverty of the Apostles and their mission, on foot, that in no way allows for marriage.
Active homosexual behaviour would have been dealt with. Ex-communication would have followed, and even possibly, I don’t know, these types would never have been trusted in the first place. I just don’t know for sure. I do know that if they were inactive and recognized the irregularity of their attraction, the Church had given them reprieve. I think I could not have done that.
But marriage, I don’t see it as the answer to anything if Jesus and the Apostles are our model and the role of the priest is understood and carried out well.
“Such an action would go far towards flushing out homosexual priests.”
Seems to me every single group that now allows openly gay clergy in relationships and ‘marriage’ first allowed married clergy. Why didn’t their married clergy stop the acceptance of gay acts in those groups?
“However, in some Protestant churches that allow married ministers, homosexual ministers are still a serious problem.”
They openly put them in leadership roles.
Also, the folks of any faith or none who are the most supportive of the homosexual agenda also invariably hate the Catholic discipline of celibacy and want it to end. Try to find one ‘gay marriage’ supporting Catholic or someone of any faith who also thinks the discipline of celibacy is valuable and should be continued. You would think they would be clamouring to keep Catholic celibacy around or instituting it in their own faith if it was so conducive to the gay agenda, but it is the exact opposite. Why is that?
Freegards
“Such an action would go far towards flushing out homosexual priests.”
“Seems to me every single group that now allows openly gay clergy in relationships and ‘marriage’ first allowed married clergy. Why didn’t their married clergy stop the acceptance of gay acts in those groups?”
Really? The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic Clergy have been married for centuries and there is no homosexual problems with them.
“However, in some Protestant churches that allow married ministers, homosexual ministers are still a serious problem.”
“They openly put them in leadership roles.”
Just some of them. And it went from toleration to open promotion over the years by allowing them in in the first place. Beware of this Pope.
“Also, the folks of any faith or none who are the most supportive of the homosexual agenda also invariably hate the Catholic discipline of celibacy and want it to end.”
I neither hate it nor support it. I hate homosexuality and am trying to find a solution to a problem which is destroying Christianity.
The Orthodox haven’t accepted openly gay clergy and won’t. Every single group that has accepted gay clergy already had married clergy. Yes, the Orthodox aren’t one of these and won’t be. Just like all the Protestant groups that haven’t at least yet. The point being it doesn’t seem like there is much correspondence between married clergy and acceptance of gay acts, besides every group that actually now accepts gay acts already had married clergy.
“I neither hate it nor support it. I hate homosexuality and am trying to find a solution to a problem which is destroying Christianity.”
Understood, you didn’t come off like you hate it. Do you find it curious that the ones who want homosexual acts accepted also invariably hate the discipline of celibacy and want it to end? Do you find that curious, given the premise that accepting married clergy will somehow make the Catholics more resistant to the gay agenda?
FReegards
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.