Featured Pope Sanctions Gay Clergy!

You are absolutely right. I wasn't there, however, neither were you. And I know the Pope was there and his "entourage".

This is a very obvious cheap shot by you and a surprising one I must say. So your contention is that this leftist media which is known for spinning news to advance their leftist social agenda were not doing so at this point. I don't have to "spin" anything. In fact, I'm trying to take the "spin" out of it. Funny that you support this media in regards to something negative about Catholics but if it was about anything else you would as you say "have to play the spin Dr." It is clear you are being doubled faced about this or hypocritical about this. We know how the media supports a left leaning social agenda and often takes republicans, and conservatives out of context to forward their agenda such as the a couple of candidates out in the US Midwest who lost their offices due to the media spin regarding their Pro-Life stance making it seem like they were anti-women. Or how the Media recently has spin the news to influence how our legislature would rule on gay marriage. It ridiculously funny that you are so quick to join sides with these people who support everything that is against your faith. I made, some time ago, a comment about how I see things going regarding Catholic faith in our times. This is evidence of what I'm talking about. Catholics are the ones who are going to be persecuted by societies around the world (and in some places already are being killed for their faith). I suggested at the consternation of you and some others that I believe there will be Christians who will support this attack just because of their hatred for the Catholic Church due to their misconceived ideas. Leaving the rest Christianity weaker and the rest of Christianity as easy pickings to persecute and eradicate. You have already shown in this thread by your response to my post that you are willing to join sides with a group of people who oppose God and support abortion, euthanasia, promoting gay lifestyle, fornication, adultery, and just about every other evil under the sun...Just so you can make cheap shots at the Catholic Church. You may hate the Catholic Church but the Leftist Media group is not a bed fellow you should have. They will come after you next. They already liken Christian fundamentalist to Islamic Terrorist who kill thousands of innocent people.

As if I make accusations I can't back up. There is no again and yes I can back up my claim. I'll even use your friends the leftist media who were there to support my statements. For instance I said

According to Time Magazine

Then I said

well according to your socially relaxed media friends at the Huffington post said

So. Yes I can back up my assertions using the same sources which wanted to spin it to show the Pope's attempting to "reach out to homosexuals". Its clear the leftist media blew this out to favor their agenda.

 

Hello Thinkingstuff!!! I see you are still defending the undefendable! Too bad most people confine their thinking within their system of theology instead of the word of God. Try stepping outside the box of your system. Try looking at this issue as a non-Catholic and you will see it a completely different manner.

 

I couldn't care less if the pope condemned h0m0sectuality, and many other immoral practices as I'd still consider CC/RCC apostate. Standing against immorality won't make it or any person a sheep.

It's not about what issues one stands or falls for, it's about being born again biblically and walking in biblical truth.

 

:thumbs:

:thumbs:

Couldn't agree more with you! Mormons take public stands against certain types of immorality and stand for certain types of family values (while their doctrine and prophets contradict every bit of it).

 

Well, first hello Biblicist! And I'm not defending the "undefendable" as you call it but pointing out the truth of the matter. An entirely different thing. And Theological systems are built out of the word of God. You're just stuck only on the written word of God which isn't' a necessarily bad thing unless you interpret it to coincide with your already determined and formed perspective based on the doctrines of Man making void the word of God. As far as looking at it from a different perspective well Preacher for truth covers that perspective quite well. If I weren't Catholic I wouldn't care as I had no dog in the issue. The problem is DHK cares and uses the false premise of leftist media attempting to once again to disparage the Catholic Church. It's not like I started a thread touting Catholicism. Rather, without provocation, DHK saw an opportunity to disparage the Catholic Church from a source he normally would be skeptical about with regards to information regarding immoral behavior. I'm just responding with some truth. But like I said PFT not being Catholic holds the non-Catholic perspective well. "Who cares?" Indeed.

 

& so....relax the celibacy nonsense & inspire real men, not queers, to be the resulting clergy.

 

That's the no-brainer! The RCC didn't have this sanction from their beginning, so why can't they see celibacy does not make a person "more" holy or "better" to serve? .........just plain dumb in mho.......but then again, there is quite a bit they don't seem to understand about the bible.

 

First let us be very clear about one thing the phrase "Pope Francis Says He Does Not Judge Gay Priests." is from the outset incorrect. 1st point. That phrase is an article title not a quote. Second of all Pope Francis did not say he "Does not Judge Gay Priest". The article from Time Magazine (Leftist socialist agenda rag that they are) misconstrued what the Pope actually said. What Time reported he actually said from that fraudulently titled article is

I used two media sources both liberal which backs up everything I said though they attempted to spin it in favor of their agenda but pay attention and you'll catch the details just as I mentioned them.

In English we have things like object of the sentence. The Pope did indeed say "they should not be marginalized" not "(Gays) should not be marginalized." The question what is the object of the sentence referenced by the word "they"? Well look at the quote from time magazine once again.

It is clear the Pope is speaking to a specified group of people not just gays in general but particularly from that quote a group of Gays who have accepted the Lord (which requires repentance) and are of good will (Ie acting in good faith). In short the object of the sentence which he says should not be marginalized are gays who have repented, accepted the lord and are acting in good faith not practicing the homosexual lifestyle these men should not be marginalized. Think of the Adulterous woman whom the Pharisees attempted to have Jesus witness the stoning to death of. He did not trivialize the woman but told the Pharisees the one without sin is allowed to cast the first stone. They all walked away knowing they all had some sin guilt. Did Jesus marginalize the woman? No. But he did tell her that her accusers were gone and for her to sin no more. Given this is Jesus action regarding this woman's sin how can we judge repentant men who once were homosexual? Which is Pope Francis' point.

My inference isn't anything like that.

DHK sounds like you're confusing yourself.

Clearly you're confused. What are you talking about? If a person turns from their sin and repents and comes to Jesus they are saved. So what are you talking about?

He's talking about repentance and accepting of the Lord. What else would he be talking about? How can he judge a man who repented and is living in faith? You're confusing yourself it seems.

Seriously? Did you not read that article? Specifically where it says

What part of "when a person sins and confesses (which is repentance)" don't you understand? What part of "God both forgives and forgets" don't you understand? Its right there in the article.

Uh. That's not what he said. I read the article for that quote and its not in there. You're now making stuff up.

Now you've gone off the reservation brother. You're are beginning to rant.
The Pope didn't say anything in regards to anything you just ranted about just now.
If you're trying to preach that you don't believe some people have same sex attraction, I would have to disagree. However, I believe that is a disorder like alcoholism. But I agree with you a person doesn't have to act on their disorder and cannot be defined by their disorder if they don't give into it. A person with same sex attraction who doesn't practice the homosexual lifestyle isn't really a homosexual. Just like a person with the predisposition to alcoholism who doesn't drink isn't a drunk. But that wasn't covered in the Pope's discussion.

Let me ask you a question. If you found a Pastor who had same sex attraction but never engaged in the homosexual lifestyle would you kick him out? Let me ask you another question. What if you found a man had once been involved in the homosexual lifestyle but repented became born again and never again engage in that life style. Would you kick him out as well?

Which one or both of the scenarios I placed questions to you did the person disqualify themselves? Or are you speaking to another type of person?

On a personal note I pray that Catholics get rid of every practicing gay clergy member anywhere in the church. I mean the Episcopalians will be glad to have them. They should go there. But men who are truly repentant and have laid aside their sin at the cross and are following Jesus I think should be ok. Just like I would accept a man who repents of pornography and decides to pastor. However, a Pastor who is still in bondage to pornography should resign.

 

I believe real men can abstain from sex. I mean God expects us all to abstain from sex until we are married right? I didn't get married until my 30's. Some of us real mean had to abstain longer than others. Sex doesn't define me as a man. I subject sex to my will. That is what a real man does.

 

Wow, its like you didn't even read my post number 62. Frankly, I'm astonished you would even make this comment. I put the discussion it was in on the airplane which the interviews took place in its proper context. Of course you agree with the media as it supports your own twisted view of the Catholic Church but the question is did you or the media get it right? Of course not and I showed you the actual context using two media sources. Specifically, I said.

to show support for this context I provided the media report on that discussion from the Huffington Post a well known liberal rag. Specifically.

Clearly, from the media itself the discourse in its context wasn't about generally gay people but specifically clergy who had been gay and were not sexually active. Which puts the entire quote in its context which makes clear sense when the Pope says

which I quoted from Time Magazine article on line. "They" is a particular group of clergy who had been gay but were not engaged in the lifestyle which Pope Francis further qualified by saying "if they accept the Lord and have good will" which not only means male clergy who had been gay and are no longer engaged in the life style but also men who had accepted the Lord (repented) and are of good will (acting in good faith). So, there is no way the media got it right but it is clear as they always do they spin it towards their agenda. However according to the left wing media they even admit that

which the church's stance had been as Benedict xvi instituted this policy which hasn't yet been changed

And historically the Church's view of Homosexual behavior is already documented.

I have which tells me there is a "gay lobby" in the Catholic Church as Pope Francis also indicated though he also says these men aren't carrying around a "gay" card. Which makes me believe that gay activist have purposely infiltrated the church so as to secretly advance their agenda. However, to limit that nonsense Pope Benedict xvi put in place a policy to limit the number of these kind of men to the clergy.

A couple of things Gay men who become clergy don't advertise they are gay. Which means they are disingenuous people to begin with. Second many gay men are predatory by nature since sin is predatory. Scriptures say Satan goes around like a lion looking for whom he can devour. Which is why they are attracted to roles of trust. Many sports team coaches have been gay look at the Sandusky trial. Many psychologist and councilors are gay. It would stand to reason that these predatory men would be attracted to the priesthood and protestant pastors positions as well. It not just a Catholic issue. In all of these cases these men do not declare themselves for who they are and deceive the people around them until they decide to act which is in secret. To be honest it is diabolical. Satan is behind it.

I don't know why. Why do Baptist churches hire unsaved Pastors but automatically assume they are saved? The fact is the Catholic Church asks every member for a profession of faith at all points of their Christian walk. Just like with unsaved protestant ministers, Catholics have unsaved men who want to be clergy, but in both cases these men are making a profession of faith that isn't real.

Yes that is exactly what I said. The scriptures say

and again

and again

and again

How can a practicing gay be saved? He cannot. Which is why repentance is important. This repentance is supposed to occur before coming to the Christian faith much more the clergy.

It is sin based on a disorder. As I've said many gays are predatory. These men in Canada are predators.

 

continued...

I think you are confused. People are disordered by sin. But you don't have to act on your inclination and thereby avoid sin. For instance its my inclination when I see an attractive woman in a bikini is to want to lust. However, I don't have to give in to that inclination. If you see a practically naked woman and it arouses a desire that isn't the sin. Its when you take the second look or play with that desire that it becomes sin. There are disordered sick men who act on their sin and abuse children. That is evil and its sin and one who practices such cannot be saved.

How do many pastors then become pastors? I know many who in their life before being born again were fornicators, adulterers, thieves, liars and other things as well. according to you non of these men can be pastors but if you take an inventory of pastors I suspect you will find many who were such in a past life. How about divorced pastors? At least a quarter of pastors are probably divorced.

At least we are in agreement here.

 

I totally disagree but we aren't supposed to elaborate on sexual stuff here. Suffusive to say, there is a strong link toward homosexual behavior when any church demands celibacy from their clergy.

 

I'm having a problem following your train of thought. First of all, I never brought science into the discussion. What I did mention is a predisposition to sin. I'm not arguing from science but from scripture. Man is born in sin. Rom 5:12. What that means is that we are born disordered. That can manifest itself in many ways and is as individual as the persons themselves. Some people are predisposed to violent anger. Others to addictions. Others to sexual deviancy. Homosexuality is along the lines of sexual deviancy but that isn't the only sexual deviant behavior. Adultery, fornication, and other things fall into that category as well. Its not a biological problem but a sin problem. Man is disordered and will sin in many ways. The homosexual lifestyle falls under this disorder. That is what I was getting at.

I entirely agree.

Again we agree.

Again we are in agreement.

. Yes we are on the same page here.

Well, I don't look at pornography. And I read scriptures so...

Yep, that is right.

That wasn't Noah but rather Lot FYI. As I said its a sin problem. Not just for Lot but for his daughters as well. Lot and his daughters were born disordered and didn't follow the Lord's teaching.

Again, I never brought up science but sin and being disordered. It is almost as if DHK you are having a conversation with someone else. A silent person at that. I'm not arguing a biological defect but rather a spiritual one.

Yes, I never believed you were Mormon. I also agree its an important qualification.

Again we agree.

Well, DHK, I suspect that if you did a poll on this board you will find a few divorced pastors and other people who are divorced and remarried. So its not the general "Protestant world" that I'm speaking about. But a bit closer to home.

Uh... That passage isn't saying the man must be married. Rather it is saying that if a man is married he should be the husband of one wife.

Strange. The scripture would disagree with you. Consider the Lord himself was never married. Also consider that Jesus himself said:

Also consider what Paul said:

It is clear in scripture that some people have the gift of celibacy and can remain so. For others it is a great struggle and its better for them to Marry. And if you do get Married you should be the husband of one wife like Timothy says. Paul goes on to say why he would prefer that men remain single or celibate

So there is nothing wrong with Single leaders of the Church. In fact according to Jesus and Paul it would be preferred.

DHK. Catholics do not forbid people to marry. In fact they encourage it. And of all the 22 Catholic rites only 1 requires Celibate Clergy which I've shown isn't wrong according to scripture but to be clergy in that one rite they must be willing to lay down their lives so that they can focus on God. And if sex is a problem for them then they should avoid the role of pastor in that rite. Its an important distinction. Also note that at the time of Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians, there were groups of people claiming to be Christian (gnostic types) who forbid marriage but encourage fornication just like the Cathars of a latter age. Paul was speaking against this.

 

This year we have a science based study based on genetically identical twins proving that homosexuality is not a matter of genes - not genetic defect, cannot be blamed on genetics.

But it CAN be blamed on the sinful nature - and we all have one of those.

Indeed that is a big problem with the catholic idea of celebacy - infant bones found in the basements of convents - homosexual priests - etc.

Paul asks the question

1 Cor 9
9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?
5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?

Here Paul debunks every effort to cram the idea of celebacy on apostles, on apostolic succession myths, on the priesthood of all believers, and on the fictional idea that Christians have priests and they should be celebate -- though this is never the case with the Biblical priesthood.

1. I just shows that according to the Bible it is wrong to impose that on the clergy.

2. By your wording above it would "appear" that a priest in "one rite" can simply "switch to another rite" for the clergy any time he decides to get married. Same is true for Nuns. The priest just switches from Jesuit to Benedictine?

- oh no wait! they all just get "Fired" if they decide not to remain celebate! No pressure - just fired.

And there you have the problem - unlike the NT 1Cor 9 example they get fired. But in 1Cor 9 among all of them - it is a personal choice for a few not to marry and the MANY to be married - non get fired for their choice early on --- or later on.

That is the difference between the Bible model and the Catholic model that locks these men into either finding illegal means - or getting fired.

That part is obvious to all.

===============================

Having said that - we who condemn the Catholic church for celibacy in the priesthood cannot "have it both ways". We cannot claim that they are promoting homosexual activity in the priesthood and condemn them for those actions - at the same time we condemn them for insisting on celibacy. Either they are insisting on celibacy or they are not - it can't be both ways.

But having said that - their anti-biblical rule of "celibacy or lose your job" -
causes all forms of immoral illegal consequences - though unintended.

For example their system of committed single men being attended to - by committed single women - is a great opportunity for "father forgive me for I have sinned - again" scenarios.

in Christ,

Bob

 

protect-abusers-silence-victims

Bob I worked with a guy whose family was Polish & his father was in the construction trade & attempted to get him to be (act like) a normal heterosexual man....to the old guys utter horror the son came to him one day & told him he despised him & he was going into the Catholic priesthood. This queer told me the story (because he despised his Father so much) & then gave me a litany of reasons why a fledgling Homosexual would be happy as a Catholic Priest. It was almost as if the Catholic Priesthood was the perfect job, tailor made for a male gay man & being a nun the perfect job for a gay woman. I don't want to go into it in detail, but you can understand how that might be the perfect career move for queers. From then on I understood that the RC Clergy (including many of the nuns & priests who educated me K-12 ) where in the closet Homosexuals. Not all mind you, but those who considered it a calling generally got mustered out in the long run.....leaving RC laity to cope with these deranged & perverted clergy they called Father, Mother, Sister, Brother. Deplorable right! More information....just google any of a number of sites dealing with Catholic Priests (all Godly men of course) abusing children. And here is a recent article in my home state of New Joisey.

My own personal prayer..... may they all rot in hell!

http://www.examiner.com/article/cat...-lobbyists-to-protect-abusers-silence-victims

 

Is it possible that the pro-democrat slant of Catholics in the U.S. - is not an "accident"??

I used to think it was very odd - given the stand of the RCC on issues like abortion and the gay agenda. Could it be that the U.S. priests are giving messages from the pulpit that emphasize the need to promote the Democrat platform "at all costs" so as to open a door for a not so-open agenda "on the part of the priest"? Without actually saying that he supports the gay agenda?

In other words - I doubt that they are promoting the gay lifestyle from the pulpit -- all they have to do is ask for people to "sign up" to their chosen occupation and that people consider the bread-and-butter issues of the Democrat party as being more important than any other concern - after all the priest may not actually be genuinely opposed to the gay agenda but just can't say it from the pulpit -- and presto! You have majority vote going democrat among Roman Catholics.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-idUSBRE8A71M420121108

in Christ,

Bob