|
Published: July 1, 2009
Renegade Catholic Advises Priests on How to Fight the Church
Knight of Columbus Targeted
Suspended Fresno priest turned gay activist Father Geoffrey Farrow has called for Catholic priests to retaliate against the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8.
 Farrow was removed as pastor from the St. Paul Newman Center at Cal State Fresno in October 2008 for his outspoken defiance of church teaching over Proposition 8 and the issue of homosexuality.
In a post on his personal blog dated June 4, 2009 “Boycott the Knights of Columbus,” Farrow wrote:
“Many priests have E-mailed me and expressed their rage and anger over the hypocrisy of the Catholic hierarchy in supporting anti-marriage equality legislation…One of the organizations, which the bishops have effectively employed to do their dirty work, has been the Knights of Columbus.”
Farrow then asked “So, what can priests do to fight the anti-gay agenda of the bishops and the K of C?” His first suggestion:
“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”
Father Farrow recommends that faithful parishioners be denied the proper use of parish facilities. He reminded pastors that they control the content of the weekly parish bulletin. He urged: “Do not let the K of C publish or announce.“ He encouraged pastors not to allow Knights of Columbus events to be held on church property--even if that would mean “creating” a “program” to occupy available time slots at parish facilities:
“Pastors may grant or withhold permission for organizations to use church facilities for their meetings. Most parishes have very tight facility scheduling. Create a program and tell the K of C they need to meet elsewhere.”
After Farrow was removed from his parish and suspended without pay, he complained that he was not being supported by his bishop. This prompted the “Catechism on Call” blog to write:
“Why would anyone who is faithful to the Gospel and Jesus Christ, actively support a priest who publicly promotes the homosexual lifestyle, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls ‘intrinsically disordered?’”
Father Farrow is the scheduled homilist for the “Eucharistic Celebration” at the 2009 Dignity USA Convention which will be held July 2-5 in San Francisco. Other attendees are keynote speaker Richard Rodriguez, a parishioner of Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, and Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, the executive director of campus ministry at the University of San Francisco, who will be conducting an unspecified “workshop.”
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:27 AM By Central Valley
Another interesting story with roots in the diocese of Fresno, under the leadership of Bishop John T. Steinbock. How many other priests is the diocese of Fresno feel the way “Fr.” Farrow does regarding the Knights of Columbus? Will Bishop Steinbock issue a statement through his spokesmouth in support of the Knights of Columbus? Don’t hold your breath. “Fr.” Farrow does make an interesting point of how the bishops used the Knights of Columbus. The Knight’s slogan of “In support of our Bishops and Priests” has been around for a while. We should support our Bishops and Priest but should we really be supporting our Bishops and Priests who preach against church doctrine and divine law? Pray for them as always but unconditional support, I think not. People have been expelled from the Knight’s because they would not go along with protecting wayward priests. The Knights did a great job with proposition 8 because the California Catholic Bishops were cowards. Fr. McGivney and the Mexican martyrs would be proud of the Knights of Columbus for their actions. I would think the saints and martyrs of the Order would be happier if the Knights not only defended life and traditional marriage but stopped the protection of wayward priests and bishops. The Bishops love the Knights for their work in proposition 8 but don’t even try to bring to the attention on bishops like John T. Steinbock of Fresno the wayward actions of priests, as he will accuse you of sins against justice. How Bishop Steinbock can look at himself in the mirror over the Fr. Farrow case is known only to God. In your charity pray for Fr. Farrow and the California bishops.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:10 AM By Mark from PA
I find it troubling that the Knights of Columbus gave so much money in the Proposition 8 campaign. Why not give that money to feed poor children or scholarships to kids for Catholic schools? I think it is sad that some in the organization seem to have a desire to stir up hatred against gay people. "Many priests have E-mailed me and expressed their rage and anger over the hypocricy of the Catholic hierarchy." That statement really makes me think.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:38 AM By BJ
Don´t think of him as a real priest anymore. Only God can help him and we can pray for his reconversion. Our Lady of Garabandal in 1961said that many priests and bishops would err and lead souls astray..... we were warned.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:25 AM By Bob Fasanello
Fr. Farrow demonstrates the true "nature" of the homosexual: cruel and vindictive. While we must love him/them we must not forget that the disordered state brings out the worst in human nature. I pray that no one follows his advice to do evil. I also pray that he may return to grace and accept the truth as taught by the Holy Catholic Church, lest he perish.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:02 AM By Canisius
So this sodomite now advises people to committ fraud adn to steal money. Well he has now been exposed for what he is, he does not believe in the Gospel of Christ. He believes in sodomy, unfortunately for him that will not get his soul to heaven, more likely it will get him straight to Hell. I am sure this does not concern him and has ilk they have convinced themselves "Jesus loves me as I am No need to repent my sins, so I will go on committing them". May Christ wrath come down upon him and all like him. I hope I get to see it
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:13 AM By jack
The faithful need to increase their support to the Knights of Columbus. They are doing God's work. God Bless them.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:14 AM By St. Christopher
The homosexual lobby -- a demonstrated evil -- now has a fraud priest to hawk its moral equivalence arguments (? do they now call the "let homosexuals be married" legislation, "marriage equality legislation?") Farrow may have been ordained but he is a fraud for teaching revolution within the Church. And to whom is he teaching it? Who are these "outraged' pastors that are contacting him? If this is true, the homosexual nature of the Church may be more pronounced than many suspect. Why not take first things first -- defrock Farrow so that he no longer soils the Roman collar that he wears. Then, take to the streets, the media streets that is, both intra- and inter-Church, to pronounce this fraud and to seek to heighten orthodoxy. Oh yes, some will proclaim "witch-hunt" and "McCarthyism" but that only seeks to avoid the Church seeking and proclaiming the truth. Much of the ambiguity of the Church on issues such as homosexual "rights" (as in, "God made me this way, didn't He, so I must be OK doing what I want sexually") is the direct fault of our fearless bishops, who don't know how to directly define and respond to an issue without endless conferences, papers, mumbling statements and the like. Homosexual men, like Farrow, have no business being priests. Those who are homosexuals or who act out of sympathy for the kind of treason suggested by Farrow must be disciplined or told to leave the Church. For the Church to even tolerate debate on these issues is madness and clearly becomes the work of the devil, as it takes the Church away from its core missions of bringing the Word of Christ to the world, and of showing the path to salvation to all. There will many demons in attendance at the 2009 Dignity USA Convention.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:15 AM By SG
"even if that would mean “creating” a “program” to occupy available time slots at parish facilities" How ironic, a priest asking other to lie for the sake of getting back at the K of C. Maybe, if he had lived in the truth, would he be able to understand what the "hierarchy" was doing......teaching as the true teacher of the faith and the Church. Maybe be needs to learn from them!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:16 AM By Observant
Read today's Gospel! About how Christ drove out demons into the body of a herd of pigs. For you farmers out there the word "farrow"is a noun which means to bring forth birth of a litter of pigs.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:27 AM By Anita
So..has the 'newchurch' become the religion of the homosexuals? Looks like it!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:39 AM By Michael G
One would really just want to weep and pray. What we go after betrays an inner conflict that seems to only be tolerated by "lashing out" at that which you once loved.
May he find the love that he searches for and finally the LOVE that heals him.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:42 AM By VirgoPotens
I am saddened, but not at all surprised, that in spite of my daily prayers for his conversion, Fr. Rafael Garcia, er, Geoffrey Farrow continues to do the work of Satan. My question is this: has Bishop Steinbock initiated the laicization process for Farrow? This man continues to give public scandal to the faithful by calling himself a Catholic priest and yet vehemently opposing Catholic teachings. Bishop Steinbock MUST, in justice, strip this man of his priesthood. We, the faithful, should DEMAND that this happen as soon as possible.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:50 AM By Elaine
I can't believe anyone would pick on the Knights, who do so much good. Father farrow seems to be a perfect example of someone whose personal identity comes from his sexual orientation instead of his personhood as God sees him. This guy is sick and needs help. He needs prayers for his anger and authority problem, forgiveness for encouraging others to commit fraud in taking out a loan they have no intent to pay back, and presumably, his disordered lifestyle. I'd pity him, if he weren't doing so much damage which he must ultimately take responsibility for.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:05 AM By Bud
His attack on the Knights of Columbus for all of their unselfish work to uphold Church teachings speaks for itself. If he and the other jesuit priest condones a "homosexual lifestyle", just what part of it is desirable and what part sinful?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:06 AM By Elise B.
If a pastor follows those guidelines, the faithful will know that he is a dissenter.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:19 AM By Allan Wafkowski
Fr. Farrow's priesthood is beyond renovation. His ministry is that of working against the truths and interests of the Catholic Church. He has become a parasite on the Body of Christ. Quick removal by excommunication is the remedy.
Perhaps the real story here is the large number of unfaithful priests who are allowed to remain in the Church poisoning the well. The excuse of "pastoral concerns" is nonsense. If the little brat is lighting matches in the house, take them away--and give him good thump of the head for good measure.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:26 AM By Josie
How deeply has Satan entered the Church?
May God have mercy on them and give them a change of heart.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:33 AM By Willi H
An avowed enemy of the magisterium is invited to a "Catholic" event in San Francisco. No big surprise. Nothing is being done from the Vatican on down. Again no big surprised. The patron Saint of that city must weep that his name is associated with such wickedness.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:42 AM By Jane
Who is St. Paul Newman? Editor's Note: The St. Paul Newman Center is a reference to the Newman Center named after St. Paul, not to a saint named Paul Newman.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:01 AM By SK Vern
We, as Knights of Columbus, are obligated to support our priests. B U T, how can we support a priest that makes comments as Fr Farrow has just made? I cannot support these comments. We as Knights of Columbus have to stand up for the moral teachings of our order and the church. These priests that believe we (K of C) where wrong fighting for the Yes Vote on Prop 8 should be rejected. There were other priests that believed the K of C was wrong. Stand up against these priests, Fight for the moral issues we know that are right, Vivat Jesus
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:32 AM By T. Arden
This man should be excommunicated. He obviously is against Church teaching by supporting disordered behavior and taking vengeance against those who defend the Catholic church.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:58 AM By Central Valley
Don't look for Bishop Steinbock to take further action with Farrow. If Steinbock acts, Farrow talks and other would be outed. Bp. Steinbock has his hands full right now planning his defense in the retrial regarding Msgr Herdegan. New evidence, new lies exposed., thats a story for CCD to follow. The line of questioning to Steinbock and Mahony will be interesting...were you telling the ruth in the first trial or are you telling the truth now? Pray for the priests and faithful in the Fresno diocese, there is much need..
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:19 AM By Thomas Edward Miles
The Rev. Fr. Has some great ideas, they good to me! The Holy Father should name him an Archbishop! He would be great as the next Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles!!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:21 AM By MarkF
And some people still don't get it when I say that homosexuality is a pagan god, and that is the true object of devotion in those who ensnared in it?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:23 AM By John
Fr. Farrows suggestion to max out the loan of their KofC Life Insurance policies and not pay them back only hurts one person, the insured. It's not fraud or stealing but an options with any traditional whole life policy from any company, the ability to borrow from it. Funny thing is, the interest on the loan is profit for the company and if the policy is still there when he dies, the loan is paid from the death benefit before any is paid to the beneficiary(s). If it lapses out due to the loan then the insured may incur Capital Gains taxes. Like his knowledge of the Catholic faith, his knowledge of insurance is lacking.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:22 PM By Bernadine
Once again, we can thank Bishop Steinbock for allowing Fr. Raul Garcia aka Geoffrey Farrow back into the diocese after his departure several years ago. It is the bishop's fault that this person has a forum from which to propagandize. He was not the only priest to leave and then return - all in the public record - by way of the diocesan rag newspaper. Lots of skeletons in the closet of the Diocese of Fresno.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:32 PM By Richard Flores
I attended 3 Newman Centers while obtaining three engineering degrees; one of which was Fresno. All of these parishes were loaded with gay priests! (I was shocked that a conservative area like Fresno tolerated it!) At one, a priest was actively "dating" MANY male students and literally destroyed many lives! When we complained, the Jesuit leadership did NOTHING!! (He was finally transferred to San Francisco to hurt young men in a more "accepting" environment!)
During the 70's, homosexual candidates were openly recruited at many seminaries! In fact, at one seminary that I visited, they basically told us that they preferred gays because they did not have a problem with celibacy! RIGHT!
The Newman Centers have become a den of radicalism, humanism, and blasphemous modernism! Rather than reinforce the vulnerable students' faith, they often destroy it! Our Newman Centers could be a beacon of faith in a sea of inequity that exists at most campuses. Unfortunately, in many cases, they actually compound the problems of liberalism on campuses. While I'm sure that there are many wonderful Newman Centers, there are too many that are polluting the minds of young, vulnerable students.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:42 PM By Canisius
Typical reaction from Mark from PA, he is offended by the K of C not the actions of this fey priest who now proposes people committ fraud. Like so many good progressives he thinks that we normal people have no right to object to the homosexual lifestyle (thats right I said NORMAL).
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:34 PM By Mark from PA
Read what St. Christopher wrote and than ask yourself if it is any wonder that gay people get upset. "Those who are homosexuals or who act out of sympathy ... must be disciplined or told to leave the Church." "There will be many demons in attendance at the Dignity2009 USA Convention." No sir, there won't be, only many good and decent people and your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are human beings, not demons. I feel bad that some Catholics feel that gay people (& even their sympathizers) should be told to leave the Church. We have just as much right to be there as those who disdain us do.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:54 PM By Dan
This appears to be another example of the twisted definition of "tolerance" preached by pro-gay advocates. Tolerance to them is a one-way street. The rest of us must tolerate them, their lifestyle and beliefs, and whatever propaganda they choose to promote. Let someone (like the K of C) have a contrary opinion, however, and all bets are off. Anything you do to them is justified since they are against "your truth." Anti-Prop 8 groups have called for boycotts, defamation, discrimination, vandalism and violence against anyone who disagrees with them. Fr. Farrow is no different. He forgets not only the teachings of the Church but also the Freedoms of Speech, Assembly and Religion guaranteed in the Constitution. His own rhetoric condemns him. I pray for his soul but also for his defeat.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:41 PM By Joe
I can be sympathetic to Father Geoff for having a personal struggle, but think is advocacy against the KoC and the church leadership is misplaced. As a civil rights struggle, as advocates for same sex marriage like to frame it, this about people voting for marriage rights in a state where there is civil unions for same sex partners, civil unions that legally mirror the benefits of traditional marriage.
I would vote for gay marriage if the issue was put up for referendum and would have no problem if it is passed by legislatures. But what Father Geoff has done is put that issue (while important to him) above all other issues including his vows. He could have advocated on this issue without betraying his vows.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:55 PM By Mark from PA
Mr Flores, when I was a college student I was very active in the Newman Center at my state college. It was like a second home to me. The priest who was chaplin there had Mass almost every day and I loved going to daily Mass and being able to frequently receive the Eucharist. I am glad that I was able to nurture my faith in an atmosphere of "tolerance" and "acceptance." As a young person I was never exposed to some of the opinions that I read here.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:07 PM By Life Lady
Mark from PA I am curious about your so-called right to be in the church. I am not questioning your open homosexuality, which appears to be your choice of lifestyle. But the Church is not a democracy, it is a Theocracy. It has a set of beliefs that are not negotiable. Either a person believes in those beliefs, and acts upon them, or they do not. If they do not, which it appears that you do not, then you owe it to yourself, and the Church, to leave it. You do not have the right to stand in defiance of the beliefs of the Church, and to continue to stir up turmoil within it. You must, in good conscience, and good intention, leave it. Unless you can live as the Faith dictates, (yes, it dictates) then you cannot call yourself Catholic, and must not stay where you are obviously out of place, by your own admission and your own behavior. I am not judging you, only pointing out the obvious. Your choice to live and aspouse the homosexual agenda is your choice, and as you choose to live in that manner, your presence in the Church is a contradiction to yourself, as a homosexual. Leave and be at peace.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:49 PM By JLS
When gay activists complain about people being against them, well this character demonstrates why. Also, he might be lying through his teeth about all sorts of clergy support ... who is going to verify it?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:50 PM By JLS
PA, the only right anyone has to be in the Church is by following Jesus ... which you map out in a strange way.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:54 PM By Dan
"The Rev. Fr. has some great ideas, they (sound) good to me! The Holy Father should name him an Archbishop! He would be great as the next Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles!! " I am curious, Thomas -- do you feel Fr. Farrow fits in well with the Los Angeles Archdiocese zeitgeist?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:22 PM By Ann
Dear Observant, Thank you for making my day by providing the definition of farrow and its relation to today's Gospel reading. I wonder if he is sorry now that he changed his Cuban name for one meaning "a litter of pigs." What a hoot!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:37 PM By Kathy
Why would anyone think supporting the family structure is stirring hatred or is hypocritical, ie Mark from PA? Without the family there is nothing. The only hatred I see are from the radical homosexuals. This is a sad state in time we're in. Full assault on the family and on Christ. The K of C has done nothing but help this world.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:49 PM By ELIZABETH
CAN'T THIS PRIEST BE DE-FROCKED?
FOR HIS SOUL AND ALL THE OTHER POOR SOULS HE IS LEADING DOWN THE PATH TO HELL......
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:29 PM By SJ Catholic
At my pastor's instigation, there is a new council of K of C in my parish. May they flourish!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:36 PM By Diane
Homosexual priests want to stay priests....they are respected, supported, and can pursue a gay lifestyle while recruiting more to their cause. They don't want to leave our Catholic Church; they want to change it to a religious organization accepting the homosexuals as members and re-interpret Catholicism until it is unrecognizable by orthodox Catholics, feeling that after we pass away they will own the Catholic Church! Please, please purge our Church of all homosexual priests! It's our Church and never was theirs. To our Pope and the bishops, it's now or never. Get rid of the bad apples. Our children are not safe around them. They are predators! Remove them now!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:01 PM By Richard Flores
Mr. Farrow is a perfect example of fanatical extremism that is destroying the church in the US. (He is NOT a "typical" gay, but an arrogant radical that is openly defying church doctrine and teachings!) He promotes persecuting parishioners that comply with the church's position on gay marriage! How is that promoting "Christ-like" behavior? There are plenty of gays that do NOT agree with Farrow! Prop 8 was NOT "anti-gay"! It was inappropriately used to rally support for fanatics.
The greatest travesty is that the bishop refuses to support parishioners that are being abused by Farrow and others for following church teachings! He should have been immediately released for his behavior! I am sickened by reports of the spiritual problems within the Fresno diocese. Many of my friends who had been lifelong, devout Catholics are leaving the church because of the radical beliefs of arrogant priests, which is tolerated by the bishop, while acts of compassion on the part of the orthodox priests are met with vengeful punishment. Fresno is a perfect example of a diocese that is totally out of control. It is also a perfect example of the failure of the line of authority that should have been addressed long ago! The church is far too large for the authority to be solely retained by the Vatican! The Vatican is incapable of monitoring the behavior of 250+ bishops in the US on top of the thousands around the world! Because of the inability of the Vatican to physically monitor the behavior of the individual bishops worldwide and respond to misbehavior on the part of anyone, I fear that horrible environments like that found in Fresno will be an increasing problem! More importantly, at a time when the faithful need strong leadership, most of our resources will be spent on damage control! The net result will be chaos and more lost souls! Mother Mary. Pray for us!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:19 PM By Central Valley
Richard Flores’s comments are right on the mark regarding the Fresno Newman Center. When Fr. Farrow staged his coming out for the TV cameras, over half the congregation applauded his actions. What kind of catechesis had been going on at the Fresno Newman Center under Fr. Farrow? The Newman Center in Fresno is not too far from St John’s cathedral, the See of Fresno.
Prior the Farrow’s reign at the Fresno center, the center was lead by Fr. Perry Kavookjian. In 2005 and 2006 the Center hosted a St. Mary Magdalene celebration. This celebration was part of operation Action Purple Stole. Action Purple Stole is a dissident group supporting women’s ordination. This is what has been going on at the Fresno Newman Center for years. We can see from this article what has become of Fr. Farrow. What became of his predecessor Fr. Perry Kavookjian? Fr. Perry is now Monsignor Kavookjian building St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Bakersfield. Had Farrow not been so vocal and TV friendly he could be a Monsignor today in the Fresno diocese or, like Fr. Lestiri, he could be the director of liturgy for the Fresno diocese. So goes the diocese of Fresno under the leadership of John T. Steinbock.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:44 PM By The original Frank
I can't believe anyone would pick on homosexuals, many of whom lead gentle, exemplary lives despite their heavy burdens. Father Farrow seems to be a perfect example of someone whose identity in our eyes comes from his sexual orientation rather than the many dimensions of personhood God made manifest in him. This guy is very courageous and needs help. He needs prayers for his anger and authority problem, and forgiveness for failing to live up to the standards we set for him. I'd pity him, if only my pity weren't a cover for my own spiritual-sexual insecurities and my failures to live up to the standards think I "should" meet.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:22 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
SKVern,
As a fellow Knight, I agree with you on what you have written, but let's go further and insist that our own Constitution and By-Laws be enforced by those we pay such high annual salaries to, Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight 1.15 Million, those Clauses that call for the expulsion of any Knight bringing scandal on the Knights of Columbus. Oh they have kicked out Knights with these Clauses, but they were pro-life Knights bringing attention to the scandal of the failure of the Order under these "Leaders" such as Anderson to carry out the Knight's Constitution. To date, we know of no pro-abortion, pro-sodomite Knights, including the 75% of the Knights in the Massachusets Legislature who defeated the pro-family Initiative in that sick Kennedy State's Legislature who have been kicked out.
Before you take the spec out of someone elses eye, take the log out of your own eye sayeth the Lord.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:17 AM By Aaron
Mark from PA: Good for you continuing to fight the battle. After posting regularly on CA Catholic for ~3 years, I finally realized that nothing I can say will change closed minds, despite the fact that Tomas and I have been in a 100% monogamous/ committed relationship for more than 8 years; we live like any mature married couple: go to mass, sing in the choir, mow the lawn, cook meals, wash the car, work, play, laugh and cry together, care for each other just like the normal people that we are. I am blessed to have Tomas in my life. Our physical relationship is important, of course, just as any other married couple-part of the glue that holds us together, but it clearly is not the centerpiece of our lives. Thank God for people like Fr. Farrow who battle for acceptance of people like us. Perhaps in 100 years, we will be accepted- not just tolerated.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:36 AM By Canisius
To Mark from PA-St. Christopher has a point, homosexuals have decimated society with their perversions, and crippled the Church with groups likes Diginity. Tell me Mark From PA are you willing to bet your soul that the Diginity convention is nothing more than an excuse for sodomites to get togather and committ sins "crying out to heaven for vengeance" because that what you people engage in. Diginity is not my brethren in Christ they are sodomites who lie about the Gospel to suit there own needs and put their own sexual pleasures before the Cross of Christ..deal with it..
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:28 AM By Peter
Dan - Twisted definition? Your Jesus tolerated those who would condemn him. What happened to him?
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:45 AM By Ski Ven
Demons are militant sinners too. They did not remain in heaven. Jesus did not tolerate them.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:44 AM By Dolores
Bravo to the KOC! They have worked tirelessly and mostly unheralded in carrying out the corporal works of mercy. Their mission is to the lonely and forgotten; the widows and the orphans. Shame on Fr. Farrow (and his self-focused homosexual activism), for trying to cripple this magnanimous organization.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:28 AM By Rodrigo Guerra
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church, generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:34 AM By Rodrigo Guerra
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church, generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:50 AM By Abeca Christian
The knights of Columbus is a wonderful organization! Now if you ask me, what this ex-priest is doing, he is only making the faith stronger because his actions are only conveying to others that the homosexual agenda is evil and it will stop at nothing! Since this ex-priest is defiant and willing to break away from Christ and His church, then at least we can clearly see who is doing the work of the devil, it is worst when those in the church slowly infiltrate and no one notices but at least in this case, it is very clear what evil is lurking about!
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:18 AM By Rodrigo Guerra
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church, generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:45 AM By Rodrigo Guerra
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church, generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:55 PM By JLS
There is a headline case right now which the big media are not reporting honestly. A Duke University administrator who is homosexual and living with another homosexual man with a five year old boy (who is black and he is white) has been arrested for trying to sell the boy for sex. The media refuses to reveal that this pervert is a homosexual partner. Why? Because the homosexual media moguls can do nothing but try to deceive as many as possible. That is exactly what this Farrow character is up to ... deceit.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:13 PM By Canisius
Aaron proves how twisted the homo mind is, he thanks God for fey priest like this Farrow who now proposes people commit fraud. Of course he uses "homo speak" term closed minded, that is your opinion our minds are focused on the Truth of Christ which is in direct conflict to the sodomy you admit you to engaging in with your "boyfriend". NO we will never accept you or corrupt lifestyle try as you may. You are part of a culture I despise which I pray to God is coming to end to by followed by the Social Kingship of Christ, which will destroy this homo infected culture and where his Truth will reign without End.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:57 PM By Steve
Aaron...we all have our cross to bear and I honestly don't know if homosexuality comes about as the result of ill will, or is just something that people end up as through no fault of their own. I will say that your definition of "100% committed relationship" is a bit out of whack. God's blessing on a marriage between a man and a woman is what defines and establishes 100%. Even if everything you say is true, how can you go to Mass and listen to scripture while pretending that you're sexual conduct is not in violation of God's commandment? We can't just make it up as we go you know? We have to do what Christ taught us, and His instrument on earth for this continued purpose is the Church, which specifically forbids sex out of marriage, and sodomy in all cases. I am all for anyone attending Mass to seeks a closer relationship to God. But a huge part of being prepared for Mass is the humility in recognizing our own failures. It seems to me that you refuse to accept the Church's authority and also refuse to bear your cross. Hypocrite is not too strong a word for you.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:11 PM By Steve
Aaron...we all have our cross to bear and I honestly don't know if homosexuality comes about as the result of ill will, or is just something that people end up as through no fault of their own. I will say that your definition of "100% committed relationship" is a bit out of whack. God's blessing on a marriage between a man and a woman is what defines and establishes 100%. Even if everything you say is true, how can you go to Mass and listen to scripture while pretending that you're sexual conduct is not in violation of God's commandment? We can't just make it up as we go you know? We have to do what Christ taught us, and His instrument on earth for this continued purpose is the Church, which specifically forbids sex out of marriage, and sodomy in all cases. I am all for anyone attending Mass to seeks a closer relationship to God. But a huge part of being prepared for Mass is the humility in recognizing our own failures. It seems to me that you refuse to accept the Church's authority and also refuse to bear your cross.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:14 PM By St. Christopher
To "Mark": the evil to be shunned is homosexual behavior. Farrow teaches -- and Dignity, and like groups, enable -- violation of Church teaching that homosexual physical relations, of every kind, and of every description, and at each and evey time occuring, are "disordered" and are occasions of serious, or mortal, sins. No one hates homosexual people, and we are all sinners who need pray and support. The Church, however, does not have to tolerate its own priests spreading vile means to use its own resources to violate the faith. Practicing homosexuals can meet all they want, and freely consort in civil society. They cannot remake the Catholic Church. Christ never stood for supporting sin, but for showing a sinner how to escape from sin. Think of the adulterous woman, to whom Jesus said, "go and sin no more" or the woman at the well, the one with 5 husbands. The point is to recognize sin and be saved by atonement. Come into the Church and away from those that call sin acceptable; it is always sin, and always the path of the lost.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:51 PM By Mark from PA
Life Lady, who are you to tell me to leave the church? You say that you are not judging me but you are. What do you know of my "lifestyle"? What do you know of my behavior? How do you know that I am openly homosexual? You are making a lot of assumptions here. I will have you know that I am active in my parish, teach Religion and also attend Mass 3 times a week on average. I have been to confession twice so far this year. And never has anyone told me to my face that I should leave the Church. In fact 2 priests that I am close to have told me that they admire my devotion. The priest that I go to for confession has told me to continue to receive the Eucharist frequently.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:42 PM By MarkF
Whoa! Canisius, calm down a bit. While there is no one more opposed to the goals of the gay agenda, I draw the line at what seems to be venom. I understand your anger though. I get angry at the lies made by homosexuals who know the truth. I get mad at a culture that seems to be sliding from one low to another. I understand the rage. But that rage itself can become the fuel for misguided but well-meaning people to reject the truth that the Church teaches. I really don't know the best way to deal with these homosexual propagandists. I truly think that at some point they should not be allowed to teach CCD, be on parish councils or in places of leadership. I'm a little less sure about the denial of communion, but they certainly should not be teaching CCD to kids and sneaking all this stuff in there. And Aaron, you have repeated been exposed as lying about this man's immigration problems and you claim to monogamy is about as meaningful as a man's claim to be monogamous to his one mistress. On the other hand, I assume there is genuine affection for this man. Try to see what the Church has been teaching for thousands of years. Christianity is about the denial of self and the renunciation of the world. I don't know the state of your soul and I don't wish to insult you. But if you try to take your own story and try to force the Church to change, I'm sorry but we're going to be a disagreement and perhaps even in a fight. But still I will try to support you as a person, even if I know that your homosexuality is an obstacle to God, just as my own is.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 12:11 AM By JLS
News is that certifiable North Korea has old Russian ICBM missles that can drop a 700 kiloton NK built nuke on San Francisco. If that happened during the Folsom Street Fair, I wonder what we'd be hearing Radio Mecca. I hope this is not too much for the dot connector challenged.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 5:38 AM By Abeca Christian
Canisius your post is very noble and charitable! I have to add that it touched my heart because it conveyed truth and I ask Jesus to bless you for standing up for truth and love in Christ! God bless you!
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 6:21 AM By JonJ
I'm curious what Farrow means by the Church's hypocracy in supporting prop 8. I would have more sympathy with Farrow if he was protesting Rome's directive that homosexual oriented individuals should be eliminated from seminaries, regardless of whether they kept their vows of celibacy or not. I suspect homosexuality could have a genetic/development cause (at least in some cases) rather than being a mental disorder. Hence, Rome's proscription would be unjust in this view (and an overreaction to the priest abuse scandal, since the vast majority of homo oriented priests have never molested anyone). However, the immorality of homosexual ACTS comes from biblical authority. How is the church "hypocritical" for upholding its traditional theology? One could believe the church was wrong, but hypocritical doesn't make any sense.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 11:07 AM By Distant Observer
There are more active homosexual priests in Fresno than one could imagine. See the archive article in CCD for Jan. 3, 2007 "Space to do their floral arrangements and frame pictures of their trips to Hawaii.." They tricked/forced their parishioners to buy them a house because living in the rectory didn't give them the "privacy" they wanted and the parishioners were too much of a nuissance! How repulsive.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 3:46 PM By Mark from PA
Aaron, I am glad that you go to Mass and sing in the choir. You parish is surely lucky to have you as you are a man of integrity. St. Christopher, you write, "No one hates homosexual people." Would that it was true. I am not that naive. Haven't you seen Rev. Fred Phelps and his signs? Many think like him, sadly some are Catholics. Look at Life Lady who called on me several times here to leave the Church. What would she say to me if I belonged to her parish?
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 7:04 PM By Betty
The next K of C state convention is in San Jose. Perhaps the excursions scheduled to nearby San Fransisco should be re-thought?
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 8:51 PM By Mark from PA
To Life Lady, I shared what you wrote with a priest that I know. He replied that to those who say you should leave I should ask how I am any worse than the many priests who are in a relationship with women. (I was a virgin when I got married and have only ever slept with one person - my wife.) What about Catholic CEO's who live lavish lives at the expense of others who can barely feed their children? Should people leave for living the "greed agenda"? Canisius you talk about "what you people engage in." Well, I am not too happy with what some people here engage in.
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:14 PM By Abeca Christian
Accepting homosexual lifestyles and condoning them has nothing to do with civil rights, no not at all! It is a downfall that this America is starting to embrace, a disgrace and a torturous lifestyle that will only bring fourth consequences that will hurt humanity and it's salvation. One of several great scandals of the soul! By torturous, I am speaking spiritually, because in due time this society will see the hurt and evils that it brings as a whole and how it affects and destroys the purity and beauty of true love. Ultimately leading many human souls to the burning fires of hell. Yes people it may sound deep and crazy but it is not. What a sick society we live in because we are now seeing
the outcomes of what America has done when they neglected those with homosexual confusions the help they truly need and condoning them is not one of them!
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:28 PM By JLS
JonJ, Rome does not base it's doctrine concerning homosexuality on whether it is genetic or not. It bases it on God's law and the interpretation of which comes down through the popes and bishops in communion with them. My view is that the problem has reached a sinister level in history and that is why it has had to be pronounced against at this time and in the way it has been handed down.
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:43 PM By Anne T.
Mark from PA, some people told you to leave because of your encouraging others to behave badly and your non-acceptance of Church teaching on homosexual acts and same-sex marriage, not because of your own personal behavior. And Mark from PA, if you do not behave that way, why or why would you and do you encourage others to do so. That is what is so shocking.
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:22 PM By Dan
" Look at Life Lady who called on me several times here to leave the Church. What would she say to me if I belonged to her parish?" PA -- If you made war with the Church's teaching at the parish level, I imagine Life Lady would call you on it, and ask you to man up and accept that teaching or leave. You can be sure the pastor, if this were an LA parish, wouldn't do this. He might either agree with you or if he upholds the Church's teaching on the disorderedness of homosexual sex, he may try a low key approach to help you see the error of your ways. Mark, your comparison of homosexual sex to lavish living doesn't wash. I know of few Catholics who push consumption and lavish lifestyle in the sense that homosexual activists push homosexual sex. However, I deeply applaud you for remaining chaste for the sake of your wife. Well done!
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 3:19 PM By Ed Garber
Life Lady tells people they must leave the Church, but Pope John Paul II told the people, "Do not leave the Church, but enter her." Life Lady says, "Unless you can live as the Faith dictates, then you cannot call yourself Catholic." But a letter from the Vatican, approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, clearly says, "the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection."
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 4:14 PM By The original Frank
Please, everyone who writes against homosexuals in general and in particular against Fr. Farrow and "Mark from PA" (or "for" them in a half-hearted manner): Have a look at our Holy Father's words in the CDF's pastoral letter of October 1, 1986. Section 10 is the only part of the document to address our behavior toward homosexuals, and therefore the ONLY section applicable to all Catholics who post here. It begins: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs..." It is clear that the Pope himself CONDEMNS at least some of the behavior exemplified in writing on this very page,... and it isn't Mark's behavior or Aaron's (which we don't see) but statements we do see from the "straight" and "orthodox" folks. My prayer is that all of us read the Pope's words with an open heart, and especially that we listen first to the words which truly address *our own* behavior (Mat 7:4, Luk 6:42), and examine *our own* conscience before we lash out at the behavior of others.
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:27 PM By Mark from PA
To Dan, the quote about the lavish living was not mine. It came directly from a Catholic priest and I shared it here. The term "greed agenda" was the priest's. I probably know more and accept more of the Church's teaching than most Catholics do.
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 9:24 PM By The original Frank
Please, everyone who writes against homosexuals in general and in particular against Fr. Farrow and "Mark from PA" (or "for" them in a half-hearted manner): Have a look at our Holy Father's words in the CDF's pastoral letter of October 1, 1986. Section 10 is the only part of the document to address our behavior toward homosexuals, and therefore the ONLY section applicable to all Catholics who post here. It begins: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs..." It is clear that the Pope himself CONDEMNS at least some of the behavior exemplified in writing on this very page,... and it isn't Mark's behavior or Aaron's (which we don't see) but statements we do see from the "straight" and "orthodox" folks. My prayer is that all of us read the Pope's words with an open heart, and especially that we listen first to the words which truly address *our own* behavior (Mat 7:4, Luk 6:42), and examine *our own* conscience before we lash out at the behavior of others.
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 9:37 PM By JLS
ToF, can you cite the words of malice that you're laying on some of the posts? All you seem bent on advocating is for everyone other than homosexuals to keep silent. I would call that malice, ToF. How do you define "malice"? Sinful behavior keeps a soul from Heaven and sends the soul to Hell. How do you propose persuading homosexual behaviorists to stop, so that they have the possibility for Heaven? How also do you know that those critical of homosexual politics have not already examined their own consciences? You assume a great deal.
|
Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 10:48 PM By Anne T.
Original Frank, I try never to use derogatory terms for those with homosexual orientation or derogatory ethnic terms, nor do I condone or encourage the mistreatment or murder of anyone. Never-the-less, I cannot condone as a faithful Catholic the homosexual acts themselves or marriages of two people of the same sex. That is against Church teaching and that is what I believe most on this website are talking about when they condemn ACTIVE homosexuality. Although I agree with Mark from PA on several things, he has continually defended ACTIVE homosexuality, even though he says he does not behave that way himself. Although almost all heterosexuals on this website have condemned the misbehavior of heterosexuals--on nude beaches, in Madre Gras festivals, etc., that get out of hand--Mark from PA has always defended the actions of those homosexuals who misbehave in parades, etc. This is about which many people on this website are concerned. Although, I have never told him to leave the Church, I understand the feelings of the others. They would not want him to be teaching their children such things, nor would I. After all, just about every Catholic prayerbook has the Nine Ways of Being Accessory to Another's Sin in it. The nine ways are: By council--By command--By consent--By provocation--By praise or flattery--By concealment--By partaking--By silence--By defense of the ill done. Tolerance, yes; permissiveness or advocacy, no.
|
Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 7:19 AM By MarkF
Mark from PA, are you willing to say right here and now that you both accept and teach all of what the Church teaches on homosexuality, not just part of it?
|
Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 4:37 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I do not teach about homosexuality at all in my classes. The only thing that was touched on was a previous text that I used said that it was it was unChristian to make fun of gay people, make jokes about them or mistreat them. The text that I use now has more focus on history and doctrine. I teach the students about the saints, church history and the Sacraments. I teach 8th graders and I do not believe that teens should be sexually active. (Sadly, not all of the priests that taught me had this same belief.) I agree with Church teachings that it is best if one waits for marriage to be intimate. I was pretty much raised in an atmosphere in line with what Frank has posted. I was NEVER taught that homosexuality was a sin or a mental disorder.
|
Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 7:10 PM By Mark from PA
Anne T, I must in all honesty tell you that I would not defend some of the behavior that I have seen (clips actually as I don't live in California so have never actually been to one of these events) in parades and festivals. In particular, people should watch what they are doing when there are children present.
|
Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 7:17 PM By Ed Garber
Anne T, same-sex "marriage" as was defined in civil law was not "active homosexuality" and it did not necessitate any "active homosexuality", or even any passive homosexuality, or any homosexuality of any kind. The marriage law did not and continues not to care if the partners are sexually active or even sexually attracted. Any two men or two women, or a man and a woman, regardless of their attraction or behavior or lack thereof, could get "married". It also has not been proven to promote active homosexuality, except in the minds of people who chose to believe that it does. For all anyone knows, rather than promote, it instead diminishes active homosexuality, or has no necessary effect on it one way or the other. As to "condone" (i.e. tolerate or forgive), the fact is that active homosexuality is already condoned under numerous civil laws, in all 50 states, as is fornication, adultery, lust, etc., and there is far more of that in society than homosexuality. No license has ever been needed for anyone to engage in active homosexuality. As to "permissiveness", God is very permissive. He permits evil because he respects people's freedom and knows how to derive good from it. (CCC 311) That too is what the Church teaches on homosexuality. And of course, Jesus said, "Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."
|
Posted Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:00 AM By Abeca Christian
MarkF good question. Good luck on getting him to answer honestly. Now wait how can he answer that when judging by his many previous posts, he actually does not embrace all of the Churches teaches and if he says he does, he only twists the truth to fit his believes. That is my view on what I have read from many of Mark from PA's previous posts on other articles.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:28 PM By Mark from PA
I answered your question yesterday, Mark F, I am just waiting for it to show up.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 07, 2009 5:15 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MarkF,
Re.: your last comment to Mark from PA, please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. We need you alive.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:17 PM By Ed M., Ct.-USa
Ex Father Farrow is a heretical and schismatic ex priest trying to put his deviant lifestyle ahead of the Catholic faith. Obviously , he should be defrocked and expelled from the priesthood as any similar pastor who would hassle the Knights of Columbus in ANY parish in the USA.. California voters on TWO Open votes rejected Homosexual marriage in any form. Sixty percent or more of Blacks and Hispanics and Asians the future of the Catholic faith in California and the rest of the USA voted twice to support normal heterosexual. marriage Farrow should be run out of the Catholic faith as should the Univ. of San Francisco priest participating in a schismatic group like pro homosexual Dignity workshop which is banned from all Catholic parishes by order of the bishops.
|
Posted Friday, July 10, 2009 2:18 PM By Mark from PA
Well, Kenneth, I gave him a reply. I was actually thinking of you Tuesday evening as I was attending, as I usually do, a beautiful Mass in Spanish. I wondered if you would have liked to have been there with me. When I go next week I will have to remember you during my prayers during Eucharistic adoration after Mass. Vaya con Dios.
|
Posted Sunday, July 12, 2009 5:39 PM By Anne T.
Ed Garber, we all know that approval of so-called same-sex marriage would be society offically giving its approval of homosexual acts whether they do the acts or not, just as regular marriage is society's approval of heterosexual acts. That is why a child who is born out of wedlock is called illegitimate (legally, not as a person--the child can't help it), until they are legally adopted by a man if they are without a father and offically brought into a family. Marriage was primarily instituted for the protection of the children, and the mother of the children. Young girls who have no father, grandfather, etc. are unprotected and used as prey quite often by other unscupulous males, and a boy needs a good mentor to help him became a good man. Although, there are some fathers who are not good, most fathers and/or grandfathers do have a good influence on their children/grandchildren. Furthermore, if a man can marry another man, or a woman can marry another woman, the door is open to a father marrying a son later in life if the mother dies, or a mother marrying her daughter if the father dies, and it is all just so very immoral and ridiculous that most are thorougly shocked by even the idea of same-sex marriage. Also, Mark from PA, I am happy to hear that you do not defend homosexual acts to your students and that you do disapprove of some of the behavior in homsexual parades. Never-the-less, some of your teachers failed to teach you properly concerning homosexual acts and orientation. Either that or you failed to read about, understand and/or believe the offical teachings of the Church and Holy Scripture on such things. Enough said.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 4:36 AM By Mark from PA
To JLS, in regard to words of malice. I consider calling people sodomites to be using words of malice. It is just part of "hate the sin, dislike the sinner." Perhaps I should specify, "dislike the gay sinner."
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 3:19 PM By Ed Garber
Anne T, what you claim to "know" is your personal opinion, and it's frankly false from the moment you said, "we all". Your other opinions are just as flawed. For example, you talk about children who have no father, but every child has both a father and a mother. Biology establishes that. What you seem to be talking about are the people who act in parenting roles after conception and how they play those roles. Parental roles can be played with excellence with or without a civil marriage license. Similarly, parenting roles can be played very poorly with or without a civil marriage license. Countless persons who have a civil marriage license in their dresser drawer take poor care of their children, and countless persons who have no civil marriage license take excellent care of their children. No religion, parental skills or training are required for a civil marriage license, and legal obligations to children exist even for unmarried parents. Your slippery slope argument about "if a man can marry another man... the door is open to a father marrying a son" is silly. Even before Prop 8, when two men could marry, it was illegal for a father to marry his son, just as it's illegal for a father to marry his daughter or a mother to marry her son. Likewise, with or without a marriage license, it's illegal for such persons to engage in sexual acts. A marriage license does not make incest legal, and Prop 8 changed nothing about that.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 5:18 PM By Anne T.
Ed Garber, I have worked with many, many children -- more than a thousand over the years -- and those who tell you that a child is not affected badly when their parents do not marry or are divorced have their heads in the sand like ostriches. It is their way of releaving the guilty. I have seen it, over and over again. Many children turn out good but with scars. President Obama (and I will call him president this time even though I did not vote for him) said on fathers day, that a person is left with a hole in his soul that cannot be filled when he is without his father. He was right. Yes, people survive, but the hole is always there. The prisons are filled with "boys" without fathers. Get your head out of the saind, Ed Garber.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 5:23 PM By Anne T.
By the way, Ed Garber, it is just as silly for two men or two women to marry. We were told in California when homosexual acts were decriminalized that it would never come to such things as same-sex marriage. We were lied to then, and we are lied to now about it opening the door to choas.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 6:26 PM By Ed Garber
Anne T, when you remove your own head from the sand, then you can tell others to do the same. Having worked with tens of thousands of abused and neglected children whose parents were married and never divorced, those who tell you that a civil marriage license protects children from neglect and abuse have their heads in the sand with you. As to Obama, his parents divorced and yet, despite the divorce, changing family situations, "the hole" and your objections to him, he has turned out, arguably, much better than countless children whose parents never divorced. He might not be ready to serve as Pope, but for all you know, he and countless children whose parents divorced or never married will be in heaven and you won't. I pray you all arrive.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 6:39 PM By Mark from PA
Anne T, I never heard one word in school about homosexual acts or orientation. It was not discussed in class. One of the priests that taught us (the dean of students) told some of the boys that those acts were part of the way God allowed one to express their love for their boys. But this priest did not like me and had no use for me and never really talked to me as I wasn't one of his "special friends." I only learned this in the past year and to be honest with you it makes me sick.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 8:10 PM By Anne T.
In my post of July 13 at 5:18, I meant to type "It is their way of releaving the guilt", not guilty. I must have hit a nerve with Ed Garber, and he must be at least two hundred years or more old to have worked with tens of thousands of abused and neglected children and know all that much about them. You would not be exaggerating somewhat, Ed? Would you? I was not. In fact I underestimated how many with whom I worked so I would not exaggerate. One time I overheard a group of preschool children discussing a wedding. One little boy was telling the others how excited he was because he was going to be a ringbearer in a wedding. The other children told about their involvement in weddings, and the pretty or handsome clothing they wore. One litlle boy exclaimed, "I hate weddings." When he was asked why, he answered, "My mother and father never got married." You could tell the child felt left out. What do you tell a child like that, Ed? I don't know about you, but I found it hearbreaking. Do you tell them that it does not matter, when you know the child knows it does matter. Children are not stupid, Ed. They are very smart in some ways--even at that age.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 8:21 PM By Anne T.
You could tell the child you love them, and it is not their fault, but the hole in their soul is still there. Everything we do that we shouldn't, or don't do that we should, affects someone else.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 10:45 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, are you constitutionally unable to answer a question? The question was not what you claim to teach your students. The question was not whether teens should have sex or not. (BTW, the teaching of the Church is NOT that teens should not have sex, but that sex is to be reserved for married couples of one man and one woman, regardless of age.) The question is quite simply do you know what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexual acts (never allowed, no exceptions) and whether you agree with that. Can you give a direct and simple answer to that?
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 10:46 PM By Anne T.
I need to make a correction: the children who were discussing the wedding were about kindergarten age, not preschool.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 10:56 PM By MarkF
Ed Garber, I've heard this same tact from many homosexuals...to demonize and to degrade the normal. But both the evidence and the reasoning is faulty. The evidence is faulty because homosexuals prey on and abuse children and teens at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. And the reasoning is faulty because even if some heterosexuals abuse children, that does not prove that homosexual couples on the whole make a stable home for children. Think of this...there may be a segment of heterosexual society that is promiscuous. What is also sure is that there is no society of homosexuals anyplace in the world, at anytime or place that was not promiscuous. There may be individual homosexuals who are not that way, but there has never been and there never will be a society of homosexuals that was not promiscuous. It's part of the beast. When you point to abuses in the straight community you're no different than the cigarette manufacturers who point to the non-smokers who get lung cancer, as if that makes the link between smoking and cancer less clear. Non-smokers get cancer. Some smokers do not. Yet the link is clear. Some heterosexuals are promiscuous. Some homosexuals are not. Yet smokers as a whole get a lot of cancer and heart problems, and homosexual as a whole experience a lot more depression, suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, mental health problems and early death.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:25 AM By mono-tony
I still think that the more they try to be different, the more they stay the same.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:17 PM By Louie DD99
Freedom of speech, Freedom to say what you want to say but to the limit that may bring you to court. what should every christian should know is the Bible is enough to say that Gay and lesbian is not accepted. we are all created by One Creator, good and bad alike.... we are given the choice to accept and deny the grace of God. We are not here to judge the "priest" who made bad choices but we are here to pray for them that they may walk the right path. The Knights of Columbus respect the PRIEST, WE DO NOT JUDGE THEM. Think about the great whore in the writings this is not just a woman, these are the corrupts, this is the year of Priest 2009, and we should pray for the priest, thanks God for the dedicated ones and forgiveness to those stray....
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:43 PM By Anne T.
Mark from PA, if what you say is true, and I assume it is, that priest was horribly wrong, but it is wrong for you to encourage others to behave that way by encouraging "marriages" between two people of the same sex. And now I am staying off of this site for awhile. I really need to do so.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:19 PM By Ed Garber
Anne T, no, it's not an exaggeration. It's an understatement. I've been working with children, locally and around the world, individually and in group settings, for many years. As to your little boy who said, "I hate weddings," I've heard many say such things, and they have married parents. You ask "what do you tell a little child like that," but each child is as unique as each moment.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:29 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, I can answer a question, Mark. From the Catechism, $2357 - "Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life." The Catholic Church does not approve of homosexual acts. Gay people are considered to be depraved and inferior to other people in the eyes of the Church. But the Church also teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against. Does this answer your question?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:07 PM By Ed Garber
MarkF, when the "normal" (aka the majority) demonizes and degrades itself, pointing that out is telling the truth. Your claim that "there is no society of homosexuals anyplace in the world, at anytime or place that was not promiscuous," is a contrivance. There is no society of homosexuals and no society of heterosexuals any place in the world, unless you're speaking of contrived groups. Instead, there are societies of people, and people may be heterosexual or homosexual, promiscuous or not. Promiscuity is not a special attribute of homosexual persons. In Church teaching, it's a behavior that stems from a disordered inclination called concupiscence common to mankind as a whole. As to your "links", correlation is not causation. Sometimes the correlate is the cause, but in many more cases, it is not. While many scientists believe there is sufficient evidence (including controlled studies in animals and in vitro cellular studies showing clear cause and effect) with regard to the dangers of smoking, the evidence with regard to homosexuality is not in the same league. By comparison, there simply is insufficient evidence with regard to homosexuality to justify claiming it to be the cause of your problems. If you find it a convenient hook to hang your heavy coat, then that's what it is.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:52 PM By MarkF
Ed Graber, while we can argue over what word to use - society of homosexuals, groups of homosexuals, aggregates of homosexuals - the point is still the same. You won't find groups of homosexuals any where in the world at any time where the norm is not substantially more promiscuous than society as a whole. Do argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith. Also, you sound just like the cigarette manufacturers used to, i.e., not all smokers get cancer and some people who don't smoke get cancer, there's not enough evidence to conclude anything. Not that anything that you or I say matters. The truth of what homosexuality is and what it does will come out eventually. I see it everyday in my friends. It is a pagan god that only reveals it true self after prolonged involvement.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:54 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, no that is not what I asked. I asked whether you accept what the Church teaches. Also, I fail to see why you use what the Church teaches to beat yourself up with, i.e., "Gay people are considered to be depraved and inferior to other people in the eyes of the Church." This is not true and I think you should apologize for this. You miscontrue what the Church says to beat yourself up with, then you blame the Church for doing this. It is very frustrating to deal with.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:40 PM By JLS
PA, homosexuals are not depraved according to the Church. The homosexual activities are certainly depraved, however. Now some homosexuals are irritating to men who are not inclined to that disorder ... there is a good reason for this. The fact of any disorder means that is upsets the order. Order is important and often critical in most living situations. People get upset by other things also, even if they are not disordered, because they screw up efforts to accomplish goals. The Church is up in arms over the gay marriage effort because it attacks the goals of the Church, and these are goals ordained by God.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:45 PM By JLS
Ed Garber, your rationalizing is no match for the Word of God, which is what the Church teaches. Your lead off con is that "normal" means the majority: But in the context of an analysis of homosexuality, "normal" is what God defines it as. Slick trick, Ed, but it does not fly.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:33 AM By A
Ed Garber, those children over a thousand were only the ones I knew and knew about fairly well. Those whom I have helped in some way are at least twice as many. From my experience, children who are from stable, two parent heterosexual families are the ones with the least problems. If you worked with tens of thousands of children, it must have been in such things as stage plays, art shows, etc. (audiences) or you shuffled them around alot. In that case I doubt you knew first hand about the situation of most of these children very well.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:14 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I quoted to you what the Catechism said and I accept that this is what the Church teaches. "Depraved" is a term that the Church uses in regard to homosexuals. It is not a word that I made up. From reading various Church documents I get that gay people are viewed as inferior. Some Catholics view gay people as inferior and some Catholics do not. But it is not a point of dogma to view all gay people as inferior or to view all homosexual actions as mortally sinful.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:50 PM By Ed Garber
Anne T, you say, “I doubt you knew first hand about the situation of most of these children very well.” You are very welcome to doubt what you do not know. But to say, “it must have been…” when you doubt is an oxymoron.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:01 PM By Ed Garber
MarkF, I'm personally aware of quite a number of "groups of homosexuals" where "the norm is not substantially more promiscuous than society as a whole". What is the norm in groups of celibate homosexual priests? What is the norm of groups like CourageRC? What is norm in my Saturday morning group? For that matter, how do you know what the "norm" is for "society as a whole"? Your claim that to "argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith" may describe yourself.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:55 PM By Ed Garber
JLS, your rationalization is faulty and no match for being in touch with the flow of the discussion. The context for "normal" was MarkF's references to and comparison with "the straight community". His context was not sinless perfection. "Normal" as sinless perfection is a standard for all, and all fall short, no matter how the pie is sliced. Demonizing the gay community as if the straight community is some standard to be compared with is faulty. The straight community is not the standard. To use the lung cancer metaphor, the straight community has as much lung cancer as the gay community. Why not take the lung cancer out of your own lungs before trying to operate on someone else?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:03 PM By Anne T.
The post from A, was from me. I failed to put in my whole name.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:48 AM By JLS
Garber, all you are doing is trying to justify homosexual behavior by some concoction of the sense of normal. Your reference to judge not lest you also be judged has a context, which you'd do well to look into, one of which is the need for sacramental confession. Again, note your own rhetoric, which seeks to justify sin by sin.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:37 AM By Mark from PA
Your points of 5:01 PM and 5:55 PM were well taken Ed Garber.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM By Anne T.
Let me clarify that Ed Garber, under those conditions, you could not have known very much about the situation of those children. Also, you might have specialized in only those with serious problems to begin with and had no contact with children from stable homes.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11 PM By Anne T.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but in general children who are brought up in a good stable environment have fewer learning problems, etc., and if they do go down the wrong path, they are more likely to return to the "straight and narrow path" later on in life. That is my point.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:42 PM By Ed Garber
JLS, for "normal", I've very clearly used the standard of sinless perfection, and the result remains that both straight and gay communities fall short.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:49 PM By MarkF
Well, this is all getting to a pointless place. We are never going to get dissenters to be in line with the Church. The Holy Spirit will have to do that, just as he's done for me, for JLS and for others. It's not like we're perfect, but we at least are not like those who cast stones at those who maintain what the Church has traditionally believed, all the while coming up with wordy gymnastics to cover their own sin. Sin is sin. You confess it and try to do better. What you don't do is to explain it all away by using the catechism. Nothing Ed says here does not also apply to every other sin under the sun, yet miraculously he only uses it to explain away HIS sin. Well, I can't do anything more. It's your life, not mine. Mark from PA, does NOT believe what the Church teaches, yet does not have enough integrity to say it even after three direct questions. It's like the other article on here says, we've lost our sense of sin. These and others want us to go from being the tax collector in Luke 18:13 who knows he's sinning but asks for God's mercy to the Pharisee who has no sense of his own sin. Truly, in this world we live in, the only real sin seems to be to maintain what the Church has consistently taught since apostolic times. As for the Church, I will fight to make sure that such ideology is removed from the Church, as Pope Benedict clearly wants us to do.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:06 PM By MarkF
Anne T., I agree with your sentiments for refraining from posting on here. A huge part of this is not productive at all. What is worthwhile is that through these discussions you will get experience with all the dissenting arguments out there. There really are not that many arguments out there, so in your life you will hear versions of what you read on here. You've got the one that says that no one really sins (except those who maintain traditional beliefs) because it's impossible to really know when you've sinned. Then there's the other one that says that all attempts to define sin are really just hatred and prejudice. But oddly enough, those same voices seem to have quite a bit of hatred and prejudice towards the Church itself. But don't get down Anne. We are in a tough time, but many times are tough too. Can you imagine being Catholic during the Protestant revolt? Or during the French Revolution? My question to you is, what do we do? Do we try to get dissenters to leave? Do we deny them communion? Or do we make the Church so orthodox that they leave on their own, as (hopefully) seems to be happening with St. Joan Chittister. This is my own belief, but I really would prefer to have a lot of these dissenters gone. I'd prefer to have them accept what the Church teaches, but really, many of them have only one goal and that is to change what is taught. Mark from PA is one such person, or so it seems. Others are content to live their lives. Still Anne, my question for you is, what do we do?
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:08 PM By JLS
Garber, "sinless perfection" might be an ideal, but it is not normal. God decides what is normal, not ideals conjured up by man. There is a foundation of which Jesus is the cornerstone ... now how are you going to figure out what this foundation is?
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:39 AM By Mark from PA
Mark F, if I was not a believer do you think that I would have gone to Mass every Sunday for over 45 years? Do you think that I would go to Mass and communion on average 3 times a week. Do you think that I would spend a lot of time volunteering for my parish? I don't go around hoping for a bloody civil war with those I don't agree with. You complain about Sr. Joan Chittister but she has spent most of her life in a religious order serving God and others. She has surely studied religion more than you have and spent a lot more time in worship of God. Are you so without sin that you can criticize her? You would prefer to see a lot of these people gone? That is not a Christian attitude to me.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 5:46 AM By RR
MarkF: I agree. Only God's grace can lift the veil from the eyes of people like Mark from PA, Ed Garber, and others who continue to make excuses for ACTIVE homosexual sins. Let's pretend we don't know it's a sin, let's pretend it isn't serious, and let's pretend we really don't want to do it because we mentally don't know anything. Yeah, that's what we will do. Then it's not a sin. Right?
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 8:35 AM By JLS
"What do we do?" In the Tridentine Mass, in the part where we admit we have sinned, it is customary for one to symbollically beat one's breast three times, at "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". This is what we do.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 9:39 AM By MarkF
JLS, the idea of sinless perfection is put out there only for one purpose. And that is to lead from one realizing that since no man can lead a life of sinless perfection, then it is OK to sin as you want. On here the idea is put forth to confuse us. But it's basically a Protestant idea...that no amount of confession and no kind of good life will get us to heaven. Historically this idea leads two ways, one to saying that only those who are predestined will go to heaven and that nothing we do will change that. And the other idea is that we're all going to go to heaven no matter what we do because the sacrifice of Jesus was enough for all of us. This is not what the Church teaches as you know. Both ideas deny human free will. What is interesting to note is that all of the Christian groups in this country (the Puritans, etc.) who started out with the idea of predestination have all ended up with the idea that all are going to heaven, and have this jettisoned most ideas of what sin is. When we're all destined for heaven then the idea of sin is not so important.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 9:48 AM By Jim
Mark from PA, do you fully agree with all the statements concerning homosexuality as written in the Catechism?
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 AM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I actually do get something out of discussing this with you. I think I remember telling you about how at the end of my Bible study class, our priest gave us a quiz (How Catholic Are You?) It matched our beliefs with what the Church teaches. I got a perfect score. Perhaps if you took the quiz you would have scored different. But I find that people have different foci of their faith. The Mass and the Eucharist are central to my faith. Others may find saying the Rosary daily a more important part of their faith, or working in the parish soup kitchen, or being involved in social justice. I don't know what your focus is. I am sometimes amazed by some of the posters. One woman said that she was glad that there finally was a Tridentine Latin Mass in her area so she could go to Mass every week. (She didn't go every week before?) I can tell you that if I went to Mass and it was in Latin that would be fine with me because to me the Mass is holy in any language.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 11:26 AM By Jim
Mark from PA, were there any questions on the test that would have covered Church teaching on homosexuality? If so, what were they?
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 1:48 PM By Ski Ven
Mark from PA continues to amaze me.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 2:18 PM By Ed Garber
JLS, sinless perfection is normal and the norm, i.e. "the standard or model", established by God. Jesus said, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." He is the standard, the model, the norm. Sin and imperfection are not the standard. They are not normal. They are abnormal.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 6:55 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, we should try to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season, whenever we can. And the Gospel includes, as you well know, admonishing the sinner in charity when possible and perhaps hashly when not possible. And we need to encourage the Brethren when they become discouraged, as both you and I and others have done. There are times, through, when it is accomplishing nothing and it falls on deaf ears, and we should do as Christ said, "Cast not your pearls before swine. For they will turn again and rend you." And he also said to treat them as the tax collectors and Gentiles (have nothing to do with them) if they refuse to listen. Then the only thing left is to go away for awhile and pray and do good works, and as one priest told me, "Be holy oneself." Ah! but the rub is in knowing the difference, so we should pray as the Book of Sirach say, "Lord, give me wisdom the attendant at Thy throne," and let God in His wisdom take care of the rest.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 7:29 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, you still refuse to answer the question which is do you believe what the Church teaches about homosexual acts? Can you give a simple yes or no answer? I do believe you when you say that you are quite involved in the Church, but again, that is not the question. I suppose that is the reason that you can't begin to state what's very obvious - that you're in deep, persistent and vocal dissent from the Church. That's something I don't think you want to face. The Church's position here is clear, it's historic, dating back to apostolic times, and Mark, it's not going to change.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 7:40 PM By MarkF
As far as to what should happen to dissenters, it is not that they disagree with me, but that they disagree with the Church and are doing everything they can to change what the Church believes. And yes, I would welcome the (hopefully) soon departure of Sr. Joan Chittister and others of her ilk. The woman has done great damage to the Church through her writings and leadership. And yes I do know more about the faith than she does, because I am humble before the faith, while she is arrogant. She refused a direct order to report to Rome about her continued heresies, claiming that in her tradition, obedience is only given to those we agree with. The woman does not lift her pen nor raise her voice other than to spread confusion and dissent on everything from abortion to Church leadership, the inspiration of the Bible, the role of women in the Church, the male-only priesthood, homosexuality and the role of the laity. The real Christian attitude has been that of the Church who has suffered the unbearable with this woman and the others like her. As far as Sr. Joan being a woman of prayer, that is an unknown quantity. I've read her quite a bit and I've never heard her mention the Mass, the Eucharist, prayer, the rosary, the saints or the Blessed Mother. And yes, it is very Christian to exclude people who are working against the faith. It's called excommunication and it comes from the Bible. These things are hard to do, but the time for patience is over, in my opinion. Forty years of dissent and heresy are enough.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 8:09 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, to further answer your question, yes, there were times when I have requested that certain people be excommunicated for their own good and that of the Catholic and Christian world communities. Then I leave it in the hands of the bishops. Some people are already excommunicated, though they might deny it, Latae Sententiae. They been told, they know it, yet they continue to commit the sin or sins. It is in the hands of God. You might look at that poor man in the article on this website with AIDS and wonder if he had been warned many times before God gave up on him. He probably did not get AIDS from a "one night stand--it is possible, but not likely.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 8:35 PM By Anne T.
And MarkF, I am not assuming the man with AIDS got it from homosexual activity. He could have gotten it from heterosexual activity. I know of a woman who married a man not knowing he had AIDS. He got it from another woman who had had sex with a man who got it from a homosexual relationship.
|
Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 8:48 PM By Anne T.
Let me clarify something I said before I leave this site. When I said I doubt the man got AIDS from a "one night stand", I meant to say that I doubt that was the first time he was promiscuous.
|
Posted Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:00 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, I probably agree with most of what the Church teaches. I don't actually know everything that the Church teaches. In regard to homosexual acts, I don't believe that all homosexual acts are mortal sins and as has been discussed here before the Church does not teach that all such acts are. It does teach that they are depraved. I realize that many Catholics see gay people as inferior beings but I believe that gay people are equal in their dignity and their humanity to others. I don't think that this belief makes me a dissenter. In truth, Mark F, I know many priests and not one of them has ever called me a dissenter.
|
Posted Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:46 PM By MarkF
Anne, do you really think that God ever gives up on us? Or that if so, which I doubt, that this is when people get AIDS or cancer, or their kid gets hit by a drunk driver? As the Bible says, nothing can separate us from the love of God. But I don't think there is clear and predictable answer as to if God always punishes the bad and rewards the good in this life. There's that eternal question as to why bad things happen to good people, but also the opposite, why do good things happen to bad people? On the other hand, sin always takes its toll on the conscience and almost always on the body to some extent. I eat too much, so I've got some extra pounds. Smoking brings with it the risk of cancer and hearth disease, and promiscuity, especially homosexual promiscuity, brings an increase in the chance of an early death. I'd be very cautious about saying that God gave up on someone though, or that God gave someone a disease to punish them. Still, having said that, sin is still dangerous to us in this life and in the next. I suspect that this is what you meant.
|
Posted Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:49 PM By MarkF
Ed Garber, perhaps to clarify your point, could you give two or three people as examples of sinless perfection for us? No, it is not the norm. It is the goal to which we strive, but it is not the norm in this life. What is your point for bringing this up?
|
Posted Saturday, July 18, 2009 5:30 PM By MarkF
By the way, Mark from PA, can you at last answer the question of whether you accept what the Church teaches on homosexuality with a simple yes or no answer? I also wonder why you have dodged the question four or fives time? Any thoughts on that?
|
Posted Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:47 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, we can commit the unforgivable sin of final impenitence. That is what I meant, and it is both Biblical and Cathechetical teaching. I am not saying that the man who has AIDS has committed the unforgivalbe sin, maybe, maybe not. And not all cancers and venereal infections come from the promiscuity of everyone who gets them. The innocent (but none of us except for children who have not committed actual sin are really innocent) so faultless might be a better word, often suffer with the guilty. Christ said the man born blind was not the fault of the parents in that instance but to show the glory of God, but in other times it was the fault of one or more parent. I know a woman who was born with very bad eyesight, almost blind, because her father brought home venereal disease to her mother when she was pregnant with his child. So it can happen, sometimes as a warning to straighten up before he takes us in mortal sin. "Watch ye therefore for ye know not what hour your Lord may come" was not said for no reason.
|
Posted Monday, July 20, 2009 8:10 AM By Jim
I think because Mark from PA's continual refusal to answer the questions posed to him we should ignore him completely.
|
Posted Monday, July 20, 2009 6:12 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, did you read my post of 7/15, 1:14 PM.? I had earlier quoted from the Catechism. I stated that I accept that this is what the Church teaches. So I answered yes to your question. I am sorry that you did not read my replies, Jim. Mark F, you stated that homosexuality is a pagan god. Do you believe that this is what the Church teaches? Where did you hear this? I never heard it before in Church teachings but did read something to that effect on a sedevacantist site.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:14 AM By Peter
Mark from PA - I really admire the patience you display with your peers.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:18 AM By Abeca Christian
Hey what happened to my reply to Jim??
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:21 AM By Abeca Christian
MarkF I appreciate the zeal you have in speaking the truth and the patience you have gained through your perseverance and fortitude in speaking the truth! God bless.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:46 AM By Jim
PA, I said nothing about homosexuality is a pagan god.
You did not answer my question - do you fully agree with what the Church states in the Cathechism concerning homosexuality?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:54 AM By RR
Peter: It is not patience Mark from PA is showing to his peers. It's called deceit and avoidance.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:57 AM By Jim
PA,- do you fully agree with what the Church states in the Cathechism concerning homosexuality acts? Please don't play the game of answering a question not posed to you but choosing to answer one not posed to you and act as if that was the question posed.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:58 AM By JLS
A man who sins might not incur a temporal consequence, yet the consequence may be temporal and fall far away, in either time or place, on someone who has not committed a sin, such as a young child, perhaps who might contract leprosy for example. Thus, such a man is guilty of injuring an innocent child.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:00 AM By JLS
Interesting, Peter, that you impute the trait of patience to PA; to me rather it seems like obstinate refusal to listen to the Magisterium, aka his "patience" is not patience, but sloth which is a sin. As others have posted, in our times many there are who will seek to call wrong "right".
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:01 AM By Jim
PA, do you believe the Church should look upon some homosexual acts as something good? If yes, what conditions would apply?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:18 AM By MarkF
Mark from PA, no you did not answer the question because you left out the part where it says that "under no circumstance can they be approved." You also are still not answering the question of whether you agree and support this. You merely acknowledge that you know the part about "intrinsically disordered", while leaving out the part about never allowed under any circumstance. And you never once have said if you support or reject this. Why should it take five times and still no answer? You also add in your own wrong claim that the Church sees people with same-sex attraction as "inferior." Can you show where it uses that word? I see this in the catechism, paragraph 2358, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." I don't ever see the word "inferior" as people as you claim. You get a great deal of mileage from the word "depraved," which is also not in the catechism. It does define the ACT as "depravity" but not the person. Now I know you'll point to Fred Phelps, or JLS or whoever, but they are not at issue here. What I'm asking is what YOU believe. I know you believe that people with SSA attraction should not be discriminated against, but do you also agree that we cannot approve of this conduct under any circumstance, as the catechism says? Oh, and St. Paul says in in Col 3:5, "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." All sin is a form of idolatry. St. Paul makes the connection to between pagan idolatry and sin even more clear in the famous section in Romans 1. But all sin is a form of idolatry. I came to this realization on my own, and later learned that St. Paul explicitly said it on Col 3:5. If a person is in dissent with what the Church teaches on any matter of faith and morals, then they have made their own will into an idol.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:20 AM By MarkF
Peter, Mark from PA is patient? He patiently tries to infuriate people who try to engage him by not answering a simple question and by constantly shifting blame, switching the subject, or telling us that his teacher gave him a gold star when he was six. Someone, please, back me up in this!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:28 PM By RR
Mark from PA: I'm at the scene now to back you up in this. Your support and enforcements have arrived. We all have Mark from PA figured out from his postings. Someone said that we should just ignore him, but I say let him talk. The more he talks( or should I say talks but says nothing) the deeper he digs the hole. We all know that we will never get a straight (pun intended) answer from him because he knows that his beliefs are in contradiction with Church teachings. He has to deceive, but we have the truth. We have all the support and truth because we have Christ's words and Church teaching, but who or what does he have? The occassional supporter of the homosexual agenda such as Peter, Tomas, Ed Garber, Miles??, Sometimes it seems like the homosexual agenda has won. Sometimes it seems they win the battle of words, but stick with Christ and His Church and we win the war. I know it's frustrating, but stick to your guns. Maybe through God's grace these people will see the truth and God will lift the veil from their eyes.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:16 PM By Ski Ven
In addition to always getting gold stars from his teachers, Mark from PA also can part the Red Sea and he levitates off the ground when he receives communion about 5 times a day. Everyone that catches sight of him is so overwhelmed by his holiness that they do not use bad language in his presence and they all tell him how pious he his. To top this all off, he also is a very very very nice guy. I am sure that Mark from PA is just as devoted to all of the Church's teachings on homosexuality as he is to all of the Church's teachings on lying. Mark from PA is just an amazing Catholic.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:05 PM By Mark from PA
No Jim, I know that the Church does not view homosexual acts as something good. They view homosexual acts as depraved. The word depraved is used in the Catechism #2357. I accept what the Catechism is saying here but I do not totally agree with it. I think this is true is regard to some people but not all people. I agree with #2358 for the most part but I think "objectively disordered" is an insulting term but I have to admit that many homosexual persons are disordered. I agree with #2359 but I think the word "disinterested" should be taken out. Why do they qualify the word friendship with the word disinterested? I think most people want friends who are interested in them. Who wants "disinterested" friends? This is a poor choice of word here.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:15 PM By Mark from PA
In regard to the word "depraved." I have read of some of the abuse perpetrated by priests against young men and women. These actions in my mind were truly depraved. And these men were depraved. It is painful to me that the Church allowed, covered up and in some cases enabled such depravity. So such homosexual acts (& heterosexual acts also) are depraved in my mind. To use another example, take two young unmarried couples in their twenties. One is an opposite sex couple and the other is a same sex couple. Both couples are in committed and monogamous relationships. While sexual activity between these couples is sinful I would not consider it depraved.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:23 PM By JLS
MarkF, your assessment of PA is right on the mark.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:34 PM By JLS
Finally PA fesses up (his post of 7/21 3:15pm) that he picks and chooses which Magisterial doctrines to agree with. I wonder which one of his Baptismal renewals he disagrees with.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:02 PM By Ed Garber
MarkF, you asked, "perhaps to clarify your point, could you give two or three people as examples of sinless perfection for us?" Yes, here are three persons, three perfect examples: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They -- Sinless Perfection -- are the "norm" -- the standard, model or pattern -- we are to follow "in this life". Of course, people are free to follow/believe a norm other than Sinless Perfection just as people are free to follow/believe masters, idols, standards, models or patterns other than God.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:07 PM By Mark from PA
Ski Ven, "he levitates off the ground when he receives communion about 5 times a day." Where is the world did that come from? I find making fun of someone's devotion to the Eucharist to be quite insulting. Also, I am glad that I don't use bad language and people don't use bad language around me as a sign of respect. I don't see what is so funny about that. Actually I was stunned when I was in high school and a priest cursed at me. The guy just didn't like me but I am lucky because he never threatened me.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:47 PM By RR
My response today @ 1:28 PM should have been for MarkF and not Mark from PA.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:48 PM By RR
My response today @ 1:28 PM should have been for MarkF and not Mark from PA.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:00 PM By RR
Ski Ven: Your post today @ 2:16 was right on. I think this is the support and back up MarkF truly needed. Don't forget that he teaches catechism, gets 100% on religion tests, has already gone to confession twice this year, and that if he hears something that he has never heard before, then it isn't real or true.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:59 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, thank you for telling us this. I really mean this. This is just what you've been saying on here for months...that homosexual acts are to be allowed sometimes, if they are not promiscuous, whatever that means. You present this as a narrow opening, that these actions are fine for some small group of people, but I strongly suspect that this is in practice an invitation for the acceptance of homosexuality. My suspicions are based on your near absolute refusal to discuss this, as if you're hiding something, and by how you lavish only praise on the active homosexuals on here, and you praise them precisely for their active homosexuality. My suspicions are also based on your support for Fr. Farrow and also by you calling the words of Pope Benedict bigoted and hateful. While I really appreciate the beginnings of honestly here, I suspect you are not being forthcoming with what you believe. Also, there is a wider question which is once a person is left to define what is right and wrong, where will this end? This is at heart a Protestant view, and look where it has ended.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:16 PM By MarkF
All, I have some overall thoughts about this whole business of what we've all been talking about on here for months. I hope that you all listen. Recently I've been reading about Pope Pius IX and all his attempts to decry modernism, relativism and unbridled freedom. Pope Pius IX is certainly a tough figure for the modern world to understand, for the secular world but also for most Catholics. At heart he is saying that since what the Church teaches is true, anything that contradicts her is wrong and is not freedom. He talks very much in the abstract, and with little regard to the world as it really is or was in his time. And to be honest, he did not stop the devolution of the world into nationalism, atheism, secularism and individualism. In some sense, Pius IX failed. And so we had Vatican II which talked to the world in its own terms. Where as Pius IX rightly said that anything outside of Christianity was slavery to sin and ignorance, Vatican II emphasized the individual's right to be wrong. Rightly seen there is no contradiction between the two eras. But did Vatican II succeed where Pius IX failed? If the world largely scoffed and ridiculed Pius IX, it used Vatican II as a cover to change what the Church believed. If Pius IX left the Church marginalized, Vatican II left the Church in internal confusion and frankly, just as marginalized. The dissenters that Vatican II unleashed thought they could create a new, relevant church by watering down the faith, and so they threw out most of what the Church practiced. The so-called future church of the dissenters is a still born child, somewhat talked about, but with less followers than many small cults. Now with Popes JPII and Benedict those of us are filled with hope and rightfully so. But lets be honest. Take this board as a snapshot of the world as a whole. The world is so secular, so cold hearted, and so defiant that what the Church really believes is almost impossible to explain.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:27 PM By MarkF
We seemed to be facing two choices. If we keep with the watered down Church that redefines sin, we're going to end up with a thousand little churches, none of which has the power to survive. If we reinvigorate the Church and bring her teaching back to the fervor of belief to pre-Vatican II levels, lets face it, very few modern people will come back. Want proof? Look to the posters on this board. Many are in open defiance, many are happy with a tiny bit of religion and lot of secularism. Maybe it's always been that way; I don't know. This brought me to the idea of Pope Benedict of a smaller but more faithful Church. And lets be realistic about what that's going to be like - this is going to first be a real struggle within the Church and it's going to get nasty. To create this Church we're going to have to lose a lot of these dissenters like Sr. Joan, Fr. Bourgeoise, the whole NCR crowd. And the secular world is not going to be just in disagreement, but it will be in open warfare against us. We already see this in Canada and in the UK. The media will be totally at war with us. We may see Catholics killed or in prison and even in this country. The Church has tried to be bold, as Pius IX did. The Church has trued to be tolerant as if did with Vatican II. We have to accept the facts of where the secular world is and be prepared to live in this world.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:27 AM By Mark from PA
Yes, I admit it, Mark. I do think homosexuality should be accepted. I agree with what #2358 in the Catechism says about people being treated with respect and compassion. I realize that many people do not agree with this and have hatred for the homosexual orientation and think gay people should be "fixed" or shunned. .
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:27 AM By RR
Mark from PA: Ski Ven was not making fun of your devotion to the Eucharist. He was trying to make the point that just because you go to church often, don't swear, went to a Catholic school, teach catechism.... it doesn't mean you are a saint. A lot of Catholics are even more devout than you, but they are still sinners like you, me, and everyone else. You come off here as someone who thinks he has never sinned, that you are perfect, and the rest of us are the sinners and not you. Maybe you don't intend to, but that is how it looks like to many posters on here.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:47 AM By Ski Ven
Nice spin, Mark from PA. You know very well that I was not making fun of devotion to the Eucharist. You are just sore because you know that I know what you are all about.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:01 AM By Ski Ven
RR, I agree with your post of 1:28 PM. Mark from PA is doing a good job of painting a negative self portrait of a homosexual activist. I don't want to comment on how he gives himself away because I don't want him to know how to correct his slip ups. I hope he keeps on going because he is showing the true nature of the homosexualist agenda.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:24 AM By JLS
I recommend re-reading PA's post of (his post of 7/21 3:15pm): Here is confesses but does not turn from his sin. PA, people shun those who act homosexually ... ie effeminately, because it is a disorder and screws up many endeavors that should not be screwed up. It's like a sports team will shun a clutz because they want to win, and cannot do it with players who screw up the game. That is one more reason to understand that Jesus is known among other titles as the redeemer, who makes us whole. Those with disorders are meant to be made whole ... and not balk at the power and authority of God to make them whole.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:27 AM By MTBern
Cafeteria Catholics, preaching from the safety of their locked homes, and closed minds are infuriating. Before the scandal, anyone of the parisoners would have fought with their last breath to defend their beloved priest, and now they don't agree with him, the pray for his soul, and say he's evil. The Divorce rate among Catholics isn't down, the birth rate on traditional Catholic Families is 2.5 like the rest of America, catholics using birth control. Bishops throughout the country cutting settlement checks while trying to protect the name of a child molester instead of the protecting the victims needs.
It's estimated that billions of settlement checks have been cut. Bishop's fighting across the country to keep the names of the priests quiet. Millions of dollars in donations missing because the church has no system of checks and balances to protect hard earned donated dollars against misuse or being stolen.
Churches closing across the country, but the actual financial number of dollars spent lobbying state legislatures could keep parishes open, fund catholic schools and programs, but instead MY Donations went to child molestation settlements, closed churches, catholic lobbying. I work two jobs to support my family, and church, but have stopped donating my money to an organization that will fight a committed loving relationship with my money while allowing children to suffer from closed schools. Children sit in shelters hoping the next day they would have a place to sleep then as well, and the Bishop who returns to his home and has the cook set out his dinner, makes a note for the maid to remember to do the window blinds.
The Christ like example doesn't exist, He who has no sin can throw the first stone...., yet the bishops toss stones, use my donations to hide child molestation charges, but feels stopping a gay marriage is more important than feeding that homeless child.
I'm no bishop but even I feel that's wrong.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:31 AM By MTBern
Cafeteria Catholics, preaching from the safety of their locked homes, and closed minds are infuriating. Before the scandal, anyone of the parisoners would have fought with their last breath to defend their beloved priest, and now they don't agree with him, the pray for his soul, and say he's evil. The Divorce rate among Catholics isn't down, the birth rate on traditional Catholic Families is 2.5 like the rest of America, catholics using birth control. Bishops throughout the country cutting settlement checks while trying to protect the name of a child molester instead of the protecting the victims needs.
It's estimated that billions of settlement checks have been cut. Bishop's fighting across the country to keep the names of the priests quiet. Millions of dollars in donations missing because the church has no system of checks and balances to protect hard earned donated dollars against misuse or being stolen.
Churches closing across the country, but the actual financial number of dollars spent lobbying state legislatures could keep parishes open, fund catholic schools and programs, but instead MY Donations went to child molestation settlements, closed churches, catholic lobbying. I work two jobs to support my family, and church, but have stopped donating my money to an organization that will fight a committed loving relationship with my money while allowing children to suffer from closed schools. Children sit in shelters hoping the next day they would have a place to sleep then as well, and the Bishop who returns to his home and has the cook set out his dinner, makes a note for the maid to remember to do the window blinds.
The Christ like example doesn't exist, He who has no sin can throw the first stone...., yet the bishops toss stones, use my donations to hide child molestation charges, but feels stopping a gay marriage is more important than feeding that homeless child.
I'm no bishop but even I feel that's wrong.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:41 PM By Ski Ven
Wow, MTBern! You are throwing a lot of stones there! You must be without sin.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:01 PM By Ski Ven
I think MTBern brings up a good point. Some Bishops wasted a lot of money protecting and defending homosexually oriented child molesting on the part of priests. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. Also, the safety of children is a good reason to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood. That is why the Church needs to clean house. I want a purer and holier Church.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:43 PM By MarkF
JSL, Mark from PA's refusal or inability to tell the truth is part of what I was alluding to before - the heart of mankind is so hardened now that even direct evidence will not stir his conscience. Priests rape and molest boys? Not the fault of homosexuality. Orders of nuns shrinking? Deny it, say that all is right and perfect. People leaving dissenting parishes to join more orthodox Protestant groups? The solution? More dissent. Men are not willing to commit their lives to being priests in dissenting diocese? Then abolish the priesthood and bring on more dissent. Contraception and pre-marital sex leads to divorce? Then allow the divorced to remarry and to heck with the kids. This is what I was talking about above. The clear but rather uncompromising truth of Pius IX and Pius X did not work. The watered down, kid-friendly wash of Vatican II did not work either. What the current Holy Father is doing is correct - to move back to the essentials of the faith. Some will come back. I hope that many of the lapsed who are now in Protestant groups will come back to the Church. About the dissenters, I just don't know. On one hand they seem impervious to change. Yet, here I am, a former gay activist. I add that with one caveat - I never was in dissent with the Church. I knew what they taught but just rejected it. I was a horrible sinner, yet never a dissenter. I was true to myself, even in my sin. I suspect that made a lot of difference.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:55 PM By MarkF
MTBern, you probably won't agree with this, but hear me out anyways. The Church sees the origins of the sex abuse scandal as largely due to the acceptance homosexual behavior both within the Church and without. You are free to disagree with that. But what the Church believes is at least a plausible explanation for the sexual abuse.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:16 PM By Mark from PA
RR, I never said that I was a saint. I have admitted here that I am a sinner. When I was talking about myself as a teen I wasn't saying that I was perfect. I had my faults, I talked back to my parents on occasion, I let my friends look at my paper during tests, etc. So I was a sinner, I just didn't commit mortal sins. But I did say that I was a chaste virgin and this is the truth. If this opens me up to ridicule, so be it. As I have said, even the priest that taught our class made fun of me. I wasn't physically pure but I was a devout Catholic Christian.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:22 PM By Mark from PA
Are you a Catholic, Ski Ven? For you information, I do not receive communion 5 times a day. I was taught that one only received communion once in a day. On occasion I have received communion twice when I went to one Mass in the morning and also a vigil Mass that evening (the Mass of the next day). On other occasions, I only received communion once. Actually a couple of years ago, the priest that I go to for confession said a special healing Mass. I went to Mass earlier in the day and didn't go to communion then but did at the later Mass. After Mass I went to confession and asked the priest if it was permissable to receive communion twice in one day and he said that in the case of special Masses that it would be fine.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:29 PM By Mark from PA
You post is so sad, MTBern. Ten years ago I thought that bishops were chosen for their holiness. That was before we found out about Cardinal Law and others. I thought that 90% plus of priests were faithful to their vow of celibacy and lived lives of chaste purity. I had such faith in these men. When the priest was on the altar it was like Christ was on the altar. I want the Church back that I thought existed. I am thankful that I know many fine and faithful priests but I have pain in my heart over what some have done.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:56 PM By RR
Mark from PA: Hate to break it to you, but it is a mortal sin to talk back to your parents and cheat, if the three conditions are met for it to be mortal. If it was serious, you knew it was wrong, and you had full consent of your will then these were mortal sins. These sins are breaking a commandment, thus mortal sins if the conditions were met. Also, in your post to me @ 4:16 you said, "But I did say that I was a chaste virgin and this is the truth. If this opens me up to ridicule, so be it. I wasn't physically pure but I was a devout Catholic Christian." The first sentence you said that you were a chaste virgin, but a couple sentences later you said that you weren't physically pure but you were a devout Christian. What's the difference between "chaste" and "physically pure" in your opinion? To me it sounds like you contradicted yourself. Also, I think it is terrible the way this priest treated you and ecspecially in front of your classmates. Nobody should have to be exposed to that ridicule. I'm sorry that this happened to you. It isn't right.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:03 PM By RR
Mark from PA: Hate to break it to you, but it is a mortal sin to talk back to your parents and cheat, if the three conditions are met for it to be mortal. If it was serious, you knew it was wrong, and you had full consent of your will then these were mortal sins. These sins are breaking a commandment, thus mortal sins if the conditions were met. Being a teenager and going to a Catholic school for 12 years, as you said, should have taught you these sins are mortal, so I don't think it could fall under the excuse of not knowing it was a sin, not having full consent of your will, or it not being a serious matter. Also, in your post to me @ 4:16 you said, "But I did say that I was a chaste virgin and this is the truth. If this opens me up to ridicule, so be it. I wasn't physically pure but I was a devout Catholic Christian." The first sentence you said that you were a chaste virgin, but a couple sentences later you said that you weren't physically pure but you were a devout Christian. What's the difference between "chaste" and "physically pure" in your oppinion? To me it sounds like you contradicted yourself. Also, I think it is terrible the way this priest treated you and ecspecially in front of your classmates. Nobody should have to be exposed to that ridicule. I'm sorry that this happened to you. It isn't right. What did this priest make fun of you for? Or would you rather not say?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:10 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, there was sex abuse in the Church long before Vatican II and the gay rights movement. Read some of the Ryan Report about what went on in Ireland. Also many priest broke their vows with girls and women. Homosexuality has nothing to do with that. In truth pedophila and homosexuality are two entirely different things. Most pedophiles are men who prey on girls. Boys are much less likely to be the victims of sexual abuse.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:38 PM By JLS
PA, you've never confessed to being a repentant sinner ... do you realize the difference?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:42 PM By JLS
Jesus, without sin, threw the first stone, and it turned out to be Peter, the Rock. ("Throw" can mean generate; a dog "throws" a litter of puppies.)
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:07 PM By mark4four
It’s amusing how many posters fancy themselves good Catholics yet reject the Catholic teaching of primacy of conscience. Had I grown up in the 11th century I like to think I would have recognized the devil’s work in the Vatican-directed genocidal “crusades.” Had I been around in the 15th century I hope I would have seen the evil in the execution of Joan of Arc by Church authorities. Five centuries later different authorities said “never mind” and canonized her. In the 17th century, God willing I would have had enough intellectual honesty to take seriously Galileo’s astronomical theories instead of accepting the Vatican’s ludicrous proclamations that his findings violated church teaching. Had I been born in an earlier age, I hope I would have recognized, as the hierarchy did not, the inherent evil of slavery. Today they’re still at it, promoting misguided opinions such as homosexuality as a “disorder,” that fly in the face of science and insisting that they are right because … well, because they know better. They didn’t know better about stars being holes in the “firmament” or a lot of other things. Since Christ’s time here, His earnest spokesmen, human and flawed as we all are, have spread a lot of falsehood, sometimes later telling us, “never mind.” Thank God we, the faithful, have the capacity to search our own consciences. The Church encourages us to do so, indeed teaches that this capacity trumps all else in our search for the truth.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:12 PM By mark4four
It’s amusing how many posters fancy themselves good Catholics yet reject the Catholic teaching of primacy of conscience. Had I grown up in the 11th century I like to think I would have recognized the devil’s work in the Vatican-directed genocidal “crusades.” Had I been around in the 15th century I hope I would have seen the evil in the execution of Joan of Arc by Church authorities. Five centuries later different authorities said “never mind” and canonized her. In the 17th century, God willing I would have had enough intellectual honesty to take seriously Galileo’s astronomical theories instead of accepting the Vatican’s ludicrous proclamations that his findings violated church teaching. Had I been born in an earlier age, I hope I would have recognized, as the hierarchy did not, the inherent evil of slavery. Today they’re still at it, promoting misguided opinions such as homosexuality as a “disorder,” that fly in the face of science and insisting that they are right because … well, because they know better. They didn’t know better about stars being holes in the “firmament” or Jews being Christ killers or a lot of other things. Since Christ’s time here, His earnest spokesmen, human and flawed as we all are, have spread a lot of falsehood, sometimes later telling us, “never mind.” Thank God we, the faithful, have the capacity to search our own consciences. The Church encourages us to do so, indeed teaches that this capacity trumps all else in our search for the truth.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:43 AM By Mark from PA
RR, I was chaste in a mental sense as I didn't have impure thoughts. Pure means that a young man does not have any seminal emissions. If a man does not do self gratification or have wet dreams then they are physically pure. So a pure person would be unsoiled. Some people never get wet dreams so I suppose they are lucky. I really didn't know what was going on because it was never explained to me. Also, talking back to one's parents is not a mortal sin. I felt bad after did but it was not intentional or even all that common.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:15 AM By Ski Ven
Mark from PA, there is no need for me to convince you that I am a great Catholic. I don't make any claims that are based on my devotion. Church teaching is not based on me. You either accept it or you reject it at your own risk. You are responsible for your own soul.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:18 AM By Ski Ven
RR, let him keep talking. He is a good digger.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:25 AM By MarkF
Mark4four, the primacy is not our own conscience, it is the revealed word of God. Though we are still flawed humans and make a lot of mistakes, the essentials of salvation are there for us to see. Conscience is not supreme, rather it is a WELL-INFORMED conscience working with FAITH that is. Are you Russian by any chance? Your knowledge of history of the Church seems to have been formed in the old Soviet Union. But what's your REAL angle here? Of course, the defense of the modern sacrament of homosexuality. Hmmm. You can have your god of death. Really, you are free to chose it. Hate the Church, hate what's normal and healthy. Just show me one country in the world where AIDS in not a huge problem with the homosexuals there. Oh, since I know your type, check out the NY Times. It turns out that AIDS in Africa is much, much more tied in with homosexuality than the secular scientists have known before. Again, where is just one country where homosexuality is not associated with this death dealing disease? You might also want to look up the Canadian gay activist who made the mistake of admitting that homosexuals are plagued with mental health problems, drugs, suicide, AIDS and other diseases. Ah yes, just normal healthy things. Why would that mean old Church call this a disorder? Really, the Church should be banned and her members in prison. Get to work on it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:37 AM By MarkF
Mark4four, one other little point, why do you accept as correct that the Church places your little conscience as the center of the universe, while rejecting other things that the Church says? Why do you place so much trust in an obviously horrible organization? Pick and choose, pick and choose. You're your own god. "I like the part where I am the center of the universe but I don't like the part where I actually have to change." Oh, and Joan of Arc was canonized in the 1920's. Your Soviet history book must have had a typo.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:22 AM By Ski Ven
I esteem MarkF to be the most valuable player in these debates. Good work!!!
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:00 AM By Jim
mark4four, homosexuality is disordered relative to God's created intent for mankind. That is the measure. The measure is not relative to our fallen natures even if there are biological components. Death is now natureal but was not part of God's created intent for man.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:08 AM By Jim
mark4four
Some cite the elimination of slavery from Judaism and Christianity as reason for Christianity to now change its position on active homosexuality. Slavery, divorce, concubines, etc are found in the bible, but that does not mean this was part of God’s created intent for man as some seem to assume because “it’s in the bible”. Rather, they are consequences of Man’s Fall. Slavery, etc existed well before the Old Testament was written. Because of the state of man after the Fall, accommodations were allowed for such things as slavery in the Old Testament perhaps because they would be the lesser of evils and would create an environment for gradual softening and eventual elimination of slavery.
Although allowed in Mosaic Law, it is not mandated by Mosaic Law nor affirmed as something good. Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament also, but was not considered good and something to be encouraged. Just as the biblical direction is away from divorce, so too, the biblical direction is away from slavery. In the Old Testament there existed mandatory release dates, maintaining the right of kin to buy loved ones out of slavery at any time, and insisting that fellow Israelites not be treated as slaves. Relative to the slave cultures of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, Judaism showed a highly mitigated attitude toward slavery.
Jesus could have called for an emancipation movement for slaves, but he didn’t. I suppose some would fault Jesus for this. It is unlikely it could be accomplished without massive violence as witnessed by a number of slave revolts cruelly put down by Rome; Jesus would not have encouraged such violence. There was no democratic state, how would particularly destitute people survive without a welfare state? They often sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. Slavery also served as a form of criminal justice for criminals and prisoners of war in the absence of long term prison facilities. How would the disciples survive if the freeing of slaves were made a cornerstone of early Christianity? Rome was already suspicious of the Christian faith and persecuted them for far less than encouraging slave uprisings.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:11 AM By Jim
mark4four
From what I understand of the Galileo incident, the Church forbid Galileo from proclaiming his ideas as fact rather than theory. At the time, it was just a theory that the sun was the center of the solar system. It was not proven to be so until a few hundread years later.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:10 AM By Mark from PA
The reason I asked Ski Ven was because your comment about levitating and receiving communion 5 times a day didn't sound like something a Catholic would say. My reply of 4:22 was an attempt to explain to you some of my views on communion.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:07 PM By RR
Mark from PA: Yes, talking back to your parents is a mortal sin if the three criteria for a sin to be mortal sin are met. I think you have heard in your 12 years of Catholic education that breaking a commandment is a mortal sin. Talking back to your parents is breaking the fourth commandment.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:18 PM By RR
Ski Ven: I'll second your statement about MarkF.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:49 PM By MarkF
All, thanks for the kind words...all the result of me being a bit laid up here and not able to work a full schedule. Jim, you have it right about slavery and the Church. A priest friend of mine told me that the Church can move things from the category of not being a sin to the category of being a sin, but not the other way around. Read what the Popes have said about slavery; they condemned the African slave trade and the enslavement of the Indians. For Galileo, google the words "ratzinger galileo 1990." The idea of Galileo as the martyr to science comes in large part from the play and later movie by Bertolt Brecht, an atheistic, anti-Catholic writer who lived in communist East Germany. I've heard but cannot verify that many of the accusations against Pope Pius XII also flow from the old Soviet Union. These were the same people who hired that Turk to try to kill Pope John Paul II. For more on Pope Pius XII, google "pope pius xii einstein." I found none of this on my own. It all came from some apologetics classes I've been in.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:12 PM By Jim
MARK4FOUR, Slavery more:
Pro-homosexuals argue that bible passages, e.g.1 Pet2:18-25, were used by slaveholders to preserve the institution of slavery and that Christianity uses bible passages in the same way against homosexuals. Yet passages such as 1 Pet 2:18-25 do not support slavery; slavery is not considered intrinsically good in such passages. Rather, because a slave’s condition could be particularly wretched, it bears all the more effective imitation of Christ’s suffering. The slave is invited to partake in Christ’s passion.
In reality, it is pro-homosexuals using their misinterpretation of scripture passages to support active homosexuality that are the modern day examples analogous to slave holders using their misinterpretations of biblical passages to support slavery.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:13 PM By Jim
MARK4FOUR, Slavery more:
As mentioned, the Bible does show a direction away from slavery and toward God’s original intent. In Philemon Paul asks a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother”. There are no New Testament passages comparable to this concerning homosexuality that alter our perception of active homosexuality; nor are any behaviors in the Old Testament that incurred the death penalty permitted in the New Testament. There are calls for freeing slaves in the New Testament, and good treatment by masters (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1). Paul says if a slave can obtain his freedom it is for the better (1 Cor.7:17-24). Some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation's common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others. Later on Church fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom did strongly denounce slavery. Slaves and freemen had equal access to the Church and many clerics were from slave backgrounds.
Eventually, slavery was eliminated in no small part because of Christianity. Since slavery, divorce, polygamy, and homosexuality were not part of God’s created intent, allowance of active homosexuality would not be analogous to the elimination of slavery. It would be quite the opposite, regressing us even beyond the permitted distortions from God’s created intent.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:34 PM By Ski Ven
... the pot calling the kettle black ...
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:30 PM By Patricia
Markf, the group called "heterosexuals" and the group called "homosexuals" are both "plagued with mental health problems, drugs, suicide, AIDS and other diseases." Let's not forget abortion, divorce, disobedient children and out-of-wedlock children. Which group is plagued by that? Even the group called "celibate persons" have problems, as do groups divided by race, age, national origin, etc. It does not mean that being heterosexual, homosexual, celibate, old, young, or a race is the cause. Sometimes just bad attitude including the notion of superiority/inferiority over others can be a big cause.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:44 PM By JLS
Not all problems and plagues are equal, Patricia. You can philosophize any old way you want, but the truth is found in the revelation given us by God and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Why build a mud hut when Jesus will give you a mansion?
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:33 PM By Mark from PA
Ski Ven, yes, I confess to wearing my Catholic faith on my sleeve. Everybody and their brother knows that I am a Catholic. To me being Catholic is not just one hour on Sunday but 7 days a week. I don't go around trying to convert people and I respect those of other faiths but I don't hide my faith from others.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:02 PM By mark4four
MarkF, one other little point: As you are justifiably concerned about the horrendous scourge of AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in the third world, I assume you have raised your voice in vigorous protest on the many occasions when the Vatican representatives at the United Nations and their allies at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have sought, often successfully, to prevent the distribution of condoms in poor countries. Dare I suggest that you research the facts about AIDS prevention among homosexuals and heterosexuals? Condom use (oh, my!) is the most effective means of prevention. Not preaching abstinence, not blocking programs to distribute condoms to poor people. Anyway, if you did raise your very articulate voice in protest of this unjust behavior by the Vatican, I salute you.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:37 PM By mark4four
Jim and MarkF, I would hope the Vatican might find better apologists than you two to explain its tolerance of slavery and intolerance of Galileo's discoveries. You don't convince me with your citations of a few church dissenters to the toleration of slavery and your dancing around the Galileo condemnation. I suspect that deep down neither do you convince yourselves. In your myopic passion to defend or obfuscate mistakes by human beings who have ruled the Church, your comments come across as farcical platitudes from a couple of mannequins sitting on the knees of an amateur ventriloquist deep in the bowels of the Curia. Here’s a piece of advice: keep your day job if you are fortunate enough to have one, rather than applying for the next vacancy in the Vatican communications office.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:07 PM By MarkF
JLS, I had a talk tonight with a gay man. In his defense of homosexuality he claimed that AIDS is just as big of a problem in straight people as it is in gay people. This is just what I've been talking about - willful blindness. We're not going to win this with rational arguments. We've got people who can look at the sex abuse scandal in the Church and think homosexuality had nothing to do with it, or can read the words "never approved" and see some opening. Well, this is America today. Hard hearted, hating God. I guess this is what God permits, so there must be a reason. But we can't expect much in the way of acceptance, and in fact it's going to get a lot worse.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:57 PM By Larry
MarkF, AIDS doesn't care if you're gay or straight. Lots of straight people are finding that out every day. They thought it wasn't problem. They were wrong. Now they have a big problem.
|
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:37 PM By Anne T.
Good grief! Mark from PA. Night dreams are just that -- night dreams. Unless someone gets them from reading pornography, etc. before they go to sleep, there is no sin involved. They do not make one impure if they do not come from consent.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 3:27 AM By mark4four
MarkF, Joan of Arc was killed in 1431 (15th century) and canonized in 1920 (20th century). That span of time, according to most history and math books, Soviet or otherwise (yours excepted, apparently) is, as I said, "five centuries." Thanks for coming forth as one in denial of the Church's teaching on the primacy of conscience. It is not only I who say my "little" conscience (yours too) is primary. (How witty of you to put the “center of the universe” words in my mouth.) I invite you to reread my post calmly and in good faith instead of looking for ways to avoid the truth of it. Yes, one's conscience is to be informed by Scripture, Tradition and the current views of the hierarchy, whether valid (of which there have been many over the centuries) or invalid (of which there have also been many, including examples I cited). After one takes those into account, his or her own conscience is the final arbiter of good and truth, shocking as that may be to you. God gave each of us a will and a conscience, and we are derelict not to use them. That's Catholic doctrine. You are quick to condemn those who question other hierarchical pronouncements but refuse to accept this one. Why? Your accusations about being Russian or hating the Church (I love my Church and you and all my fellow members of the Body of Christ) do not alter the inconvenient (to you) fact that primacy of conscience (meaning exactly what it says, not your distortion) is a doctrine of our Church.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 5:48 AM By Jim
Mark4four, Jesus said nothing about slavery. Do you condem him for not saying anything when he could have?
These people were not Church dissenters - please provide for your support for calling them Church dissenters.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 5:59 AM By Jim
Mark4four, it is so easy in these days to condem people in the past who did not speak out against slavery. I would like to see what you would had done had you lived in Roman times. I suspect you would have would have remained silent for fear of being nailed to a cross.
On Galileo, where did the Pope or Church Council called by the Pope proclaim an earth-centered system an article of Faith and morals (like the Resurrection or abortion or homoseuxality)? The Church never proclaimed infallibility on matters not related to faith and morals. You seem to think it does. And yes the Church, comprised of humans, does not live up to God's ideals all the time - witness Peter's denial. But Jesus chose him anyway.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 10:06 AM By Mark Davenport
Anne T, I never said that I thought they were a sin. I thought that I had a disorder but since it didn't get worse and I was too embarrassed to ask the doctor what was wrong with me I just tried to pretend that it wasn't happening to me. I was ashamed so I hid my dirty underwear so I knew that I was not pure. But I was chaste in a moral sense as I was a virgin.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 12:02 PM By MarkF
Geez, Mark4four really makes me miss Mark from PA. This is guy is like Mark from PA on steroids - four times times the mistakes but without any of the good naturedness and with nastiness added in too. Take a stress pill man. Not worth my time, sorry. Come back Mark from PA, we miss you!
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 3:51 PM By JLS
mark4four, if you want a reputable evangelist, then look no further than MarkF. He has turned from one of the most difficult ways of sin, and is busy testifying to the glory of Jesus Christ who delivered him from it. Can't get more evangelical than that. But your criticism is comparing this great work of Christ's mercy and charity to some insignificant error of historical dates.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 4:05 PM By JLS
Is this what you mean, mark4four? CCC "1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." If so, then read the following: "1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." If, mark4four, you have further questions, then look up the word, "primacy". Compare what all this to "culpability", and to your responsibility to learn the truth, and you'll find that your individual conscience is not prime at all, but subject to the will of God, whose effort to prime your intellect with truth needs to be accepted.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 4:29 PM By Mark from PA
RR, in reply to 7/22, 7:03 PM, "What did this priest make fun of you for?" I think he made fun of me beause I was a goody-goody, plus I wasn't popular or cute. One of my friends died a tragic death and he was a favorite of this priest. I felt that maybe the priest resented me because I was alive and the kid he loved was dead.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 4:41 PM By Mark from PA
For RR, continued. It was only after my friend died that the priest made fun of me. Before that he pretty much ignored me. In a way I felt sorry for him because I knew how devasted he was by my friend's death. I suppose I was lucky that he didn't like me because it turns out that he was a very disturbed man.
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 9:23 PM By Mark from PA
I suppose today nobody could be as innocent as I was. You turn on the TV and it is all in your face. I can't believe some of the commercials on TV. Kids know everything today. When I was 20 I never even heard of ED or genital herpes and a day doesn't go by when you don't get a commercial for this stuff and right in the middle of the day. But then again, we had cigarette commericals back then. I guess you win some and you lose some. Thanks for that comment, Mark F. I am glad to see you back here and active. Pacem in terris. Mark
|
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 11:00 PM By JLS
PA, why do you waste your time watching the boob tube, aka the idiot box? BTW, what the heck is "ED"? Did you know that people can become virgins?
|
Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:29 AM By Ed Garber
CCC#1790 is often "the" teaching cited for primacy of conscience: "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." But to avoid erroneous judgments, and perhaps additional culpability, it's recommended that it be read in conjunction with the other teachings.
|
Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:20 AM By JLS
PA, are you sure you're not confusing innocence with delayed onset of puberty? Or possibly an early traumatization that caused you to shut down your perceptive faculties?
|
Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:39 AM By MarkF
JLS, oh this primacy of conscience thing can't be blamed just on one person. I get the feeling that it's taught in Catholic schools and universities. At least I've been told that by several people who think that the central message of Catholicism is that if you think it's right, it is right. I've heard the word Jesuits mentioned in this context too, not sure where. Like most thing's there's a grain of truth to it. The way I read the catechism is that we are entitled to make our own decisions and in essence, to make our own mistakes. But this does not mean that we're always right. It also talks about the duty of everyone to inform their conscience, but how easy is that to do in this country. I hear the priests and some laity complain about how watered down the education is even in Catholic schools. And my God, look at the anti-Catholic propaganda that the media blasts us with. The left complains about talk radio, which is over the top. But man it's nothing compared to the amount of bias in the newspapers, TV, schools, universities, movies, plays and music. Ever watch the National Geographic channel anymore? They'll regularly do a whole night's programming of bashing Christianity. Add in the Sr. Joan's and Fr. O'Brien's and you can see how people get confused. So if a person grows up with all of the historical inaccuracies that we've seen on here, how culpable can they be? A question for everyone out there - how available is good solid, orthodox adult education in your diocese?
|
Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:47 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, ED is referred to in all those Cialis commercials that I see every other day. I don't watch a lot of TV as I am here a lot. I don't know what you are referring to in that people can become virgins. In regard to puberty, I started it in 7th grade so I don't consider this to be delayed. I just wasn't interested in sex and was innocent. (I didn't think about having sex, didn't fantasize about it and didn't dream about it and at any rate I didn't even know what intercourse was until I was 17. I went to Catholic school and we didn't have Sex Ed until 12th Grade.) I would say that I had slight hormonal and physical differences compared to other guys but this was just something natural to me.
|
Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:26 PM By RR
JLS: I can't believe I'm saying this to you, but ED is Erectile Disfunction. Mark from PA is right. I see these ads all the time on T.V. during the day and I am offended and imbarassed when they come on, let alone in front of my kids.
|
Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:44 PM By JLS
Garber, MarkF is laying out the doctrine of conscience really well. Try to understand what he is saying. Remember that the greatest commandment is to worship God first and then love your neighbor as yourself. From this the whole Law and Prophets flow. Make this primary and all else will come to you in due time.
|
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 12:40 PM By Jim
MarkF, I 'moved' from Rochester, N.Y. Diocese to the Scranton, PA Diocese. Things are much better in Scranton especially under new bishop. Things were awful in Rochester Diocese.
|
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 1:06 PM By JLS
RR, I'm shocked to find out that there is such a thing.
|
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 3:18 PM By Mark from PA
Welcome to the Scranton Diocese, Jim, from a lifelong resident. Our Diocese traditionally has been very ethnic and Catholic in the urban areas but also has large rural areas. I thought Bishop Timlin was an excellent bishop. Things are hard today as many churches are closing due to population loss in the Scranton and Wilkes Barre areas. Some of the towns have too many Catholic churches but I hope it isn't a case of overkill. I fear that some people will be end up outside of the Church. I was upset that they closed 3 of 4 Catholic high schools in Luzerne County when there was no way that the one remaining school could accomodate the students from the other 3 schools. In Hazelton, the public schools were under stress from a lot of people moving in, and I think closing their Catholic high school made this worse plus the parents and students there were devasted. But I think a big problem is that a lot of people can't afford Catholic schools any more so the enrollment has gone down and there just aren't enough nuns anymore to teach in our Catholic schools. My parish is one of the most diverse parishes in the Diocese and I am proud of my parish. We have a lot of lay involvement in my parish.
|
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 9:05 PM By JLS
PA, Bp emeritus Timlin of Scranton covered up the sex scandal by the Society of St John, which he founded. The SSJ eventually disbanded in disgrace with two of its leaders escaping the country while being investigated for their crimes against boys. Bp Timlin called me one day, after his Msgr set up the call; I had challenged Bp Timlin on his veracity during the scandal back around 2002-3. During the conversation, I realized that he was going out of his way to convince somebody (me) who had no impact on his situation that everything was ok in his diocese. I thought he was not fully rational. He employed the same persuasive tactics that tyrants love, which is to "prove" a point by emotional force, instead of truth. This is indeed what homosexuals do, since they have no truth in their advocacies.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:24 AM By RR
JLS: I never heard of it either until those commercials came on. Is there no privacy or tact anymore when it comes to personal problems? I would think that if a man had this problem and was concerned, that he would see his doctor and not have to learn about treatment from a commercial. It is so ridiculous to have these types of commercials on T.V.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:34 AM By JLS
RR, I was attempting humor. My more serious post was not posted. I put forth the idea that the solution would be respect for matrimony. My guess is that the social institution of adultry works to de-energize the dynamics between man and wife. One need only look at half the Catholic votes to see that tens of millions of Catholics prefer to be hypnotized by evil politicians than to respect their neighbors and themselves: What are the consequences likely to be for sin? The extreme consequences can be seen at the homosexual festivals ... but there is a gradual movement towards such drastic consequences. St Paul teaches us that people who "burn" and "yearn" should marry, and that those who can restrain themselves stay celibate so as to deploy their singular energies for the benefit of the Church. There are no other conditions available for the Catholic: Yet tens of millions of Catholics voted with heads that are not screwed on tightly, who are duped by every passing breeze generated by the movements of the devils and their disciples. Error is going to indicate a weak response to faith: error has consequences, warning signs ... if some men can't do what they are hypnotized into thinking they're supposed to do, then they launch into artificial means to further the robot slave nature they prefer over honest Catholic living. They then rationalize it as macho but this is only one more error that moves the consequences further along. St Paul says to spend the time praying if not engaging ... He offers no other options, because there are no other faithful options.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:02 PM By MarkF
JLS, can you tell us more about your conversation with the former bishop of Scranton? How did he try to prove my emotional force? Do you think that he was also a homosexual?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:35 PM By Mark from PA
Thanks, RR,.you can laugh at me, I am such a prude and find it difficult to use some words and expressions, in writing or in speech. In regard to Bishop Timlin, I thought he was a very good bishop but he did make mistakes. I knew a little about the Society of St. John issue. It is very sad what happened. Bishop Timlin should have dealt with some things better. In regard to abuse and exploitation of young people, sadly most bishops were negligent. It is a great tragedy. This hits close to home for me and is a cause of pain to me.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:24 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, what does Bishop Timlin's orientation have to do with anything? I hope that he was faithful to his vows of celibacy and if he was then his sexual orientation is not really anyone's business, is it? I am sure that many gay priests and bishops are silent about their orientation because many people dislike gay people. They probably don't want to have to put up with prejudice and discrimination.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:55 PM By JLS
MarkF, before it hit the fan, one of the SSJ priests, Eric Ensley, came to southern Calif for a fundraiser. I attended with a cohort from our local traditionalisimos. I perceived something "hollow" about the young man. More odd was the contingent with him, who looked and acted like high class bouncers or mafia soldiers, or possibly off duty cops on an overtime gig. During that period I locked into a long period of email correspondance (with today's technology it would have become a blog site) with Dr. J Bond who was intent on exposing the corruption of the SSJ and the complicity of Bp Timlin. Somewhere in there I emailed Bp Timlin and was replied to by a Msgr. The Msgr wanted me to talke with Bp Timlin. The jist of my email was to ascertain where the credibility in the situation lay. On the phone with Bp Timlin, A. I still have no understanding of why he would call me, unless my inquiry hit a nerve and he was concerned that it could balloon on him. B. In the conversation he insisted on programming my mind. Guess he was used to programming people, and that can be done where there is a consequence to be wielded by the intimidator ... In my case he had no hold on me at all in any way, and so I figured he hadn't figured that out, or perhaps was not accustomed to dealing with people outside his circle of authority. I continue to regard it as imprudent on his part ... no reason for it. C. Do I consider Timlin as a homosexual? I was trying earlier today to recall my impressions. At this point, I have no piece of "evidence" that would put him into that boat. And my impression without going back and re-reading over a years worth of almost legalistic email correspondance comes up vague. I suspect Bp Timlin was complicit for a reason and that it may be that he is at least enthusiastic about homosexuality. I remember that when he retired, the new ordinary, Bishop Martino had a mess to clean up, and I think that he succeeded in doing so reasonably well.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:09 PM By JLS
MarkF, on the important point of "emotional force", what I mean is when one party to a conversation insists on hogging the conversation and accepting no questions to contradict his pitch. A lot of it has to do with tone of voice. I had no point to insist on, so I listened. I did however have questions that I was trying to get answers to ... he evaded the questions. He also used rhetoric to try to get me to feel like he was the boss. He was not my bishop, so I didn't see it that way. It was as if he were trying to make me confess a belief in his version of the situation ... But why in the world would he need to call me, instead of just put his pitch on his website or diocesan paper? I felt like the subject of a bully, but I am not used to that, and so it had no effect on me other than to give me a glimpse of his character. I would not award him points for solid character. Comparably, I once shook the hand of Cardinal Mahony, when he visited a juvenile hall for Easter Sunday while I was a chaplain's volunteer there. I was shooting hoops in the excellent gym with a couple of the boys, when Cdl and his bouffanted aide strolled in. He came over and initiated the introduction. The details are hilarious, but his hand clasp was limp ... maybe that is a cultural thing, but in my experience men prefer more of a clasp than a dead fish. The Cdl also was flustered at my visitor pass which was generic and had no name on it ... panic arose in his eyes which darted several times to the pass pinned on my pocket. My character assessment of him is not high; he has a lot of fear which made no sense to me. But sometimes people react to me like that. Sometimes the way I look at them, intently trying to figure them out, makes people nervous. Nervous I can dig, but fearful for no reason makes no sense to me. Also, I lived in DC for three years and worked for one of the Bishops' orgs for a couple of them; I find more integrity in the general public, sad to say.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:37 PM By mark4four
JLS, you’re a hoot. You come to the defense of MarkF, the renowned evangelist, and attack me for correcting his “insignificant error of historical dates.” May I gently remind you that poor, defenseless MarkF is the one who posted on July 23 at 7:37 a.m., this comment, mistakenly self-assured and at the same time gratuitously insulting: “Oh, and Joan of Arc was canonized in the 1920's. Your Soviet history book must have had a typo.” In his zeal to cast aspersions on my patriotism (how that is relevant to a discussion of hierarchical history escapes me, but apparently he makes a connection), he was challenging my statement that Saint Joan was canonized five centuries after being put to death. It was he, not I, who quibbled with “insignificant” dates. I suppose you would counsel that, in light of his deeply ingrained Christian evangelical spirit, which you advise me to take as an example, I should have overlooked the ignorance evidenced in his insulting comment and let ride his inaccurate correction of my accurate statement. As I say, you’re a hoot, a source of genuine knee-slapping entertainment that sometimes offers welcome diversion from the generally serious conversations in these threads.
|
Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:18 PM By Mojave
Most of the KofC works are noble, but I agree with a prior post that the million they spent on politics would have been better directed in Catholic schools who need that support now more than ever.
My late husband and I often went out for dinner and a show with a gay couple because of a business connection and because they were just a couple of lovely, decent, and good humored people. Their "situation" had a zero effect on the sanctity of my marriage.
Actually, if there is something to really rally about the KofC it's their continued affliation with the name and legacy of Christopher Columbus. Good God in Heaven, hasn't a single one of them ever read beyond a third grader's history of what that opportunist wrote, did, and approved his men doing to the Native People of the Americas???
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|