OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 05:50:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: .FATHER RODRIGUEZ: CHURCH TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY .  (Read 2104 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,146


« on: January 20, 2013, 01:38:27 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Santagranddad
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2013, 02:48:50 PM »

A very coherent statement without rancour or bitterness. It contrasts with the picture I saw some time ago of a Protestant minister holding up a placard on which was written, "God hates gays". The former witnessed to something, the latter said far more about the minister.
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2013, 04:06:12 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2013, 04:53:59 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2013, 05:02:31 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.

Really?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 235


« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2013, 06:13:34 PM »

I admire his clear, succinct message and his boldness. God bless him.

However, I wonder if this is true:

Quote
No one has a civil right to do something that is morally wrong

There are all kinds of actions that are morally wrong from a Christian standpoint that modern democracies nonetheless protect. Using filthy language is wrong. So is fornication and adultery. Some societies, such as Iran, try to proscribe these actions.

Anybody want to live in such a society?

A just society needs to balance liberty and morality IMO. Laws should take into account morality and circumscribe liberty, but only insofar as necessary to prevent harm to others. The correct role of the State is not to prevent self abuse or personal sin--that is the role of the Church.


Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2013, 06:37:09 PM »

I admire his clear, succinct message and his boldness. God bless him.

However, I wonder if this is true:

Quote
No one has a civil right to do something that is morally wrong

There are all kinds of actions that are morally wrong from a Christian standpoint that modern democracies nonetheless protect. Using filthy language is wrong. So is fornication and adultery. Some societies, such as Iran, try to proscribe these actions.

Anybody want to live in such a society?

A just society needs to balance liberty and morality IMO. Laws should take into account morality and circumscribe liberty, but only insofar as necessary to prevent harm to others. The correct role of the State is not to prevent self abuse or personal sin--that is the role of the Church.




It depends what state you're looking at. But maybe you think all forms of pre-Enlightenment government were de facto repressive and tyrannical.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2013, 07:02:13 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.

even so let us ask ourselves then...

how far are you willing to go to create earthly Jerusalem? for that matter how many of your sins  are on the legislature? should the Church demand legislation of the State against all none Christians and their practice that does not violate human rights? the pure earthly society some seek to create has been attempted by others and its end result time and again has been a satanic violation of the Human Person even when its done in the name of 'good'

such controle of the Human Person has been the avarice at the heart of Lucifer himself, and he has taught others to lust after such power under different pretexts, and they have unleashed mayhem and horror in the name of purity and goodness. why do you think he asked Christ to bow down and worship him in exchange for that control?

what really saves your brother?

...ah well, dangerous territory I find myself in.

 Peace be with you.
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2013, 07:21:59 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.
And how does homosexuality affect anyone other than the people involved???  Where in the scriptures does it say we must force our will on others???  Where in the Scriptures does it say that legislation is the solution to all sin???  Where in the Scriptures are we led to believe that our views are to be tied into secular politics???

He that is vniust, let him be vniust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and hee that is righteous, let him bee righteous still: and hee that is holy, let him be holy still. -Revelation 22:11

And Iesus answering, said vnto them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesars: and to God the things that are Gods. -St. Mark 12:17

Then said Iesus vnto him, Put vp againe thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. -St. Matthew 26:52

Therefore all things whatsoeuer ye would that men should doe to you, doe ye euen so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. -St. Matthew 7:12

No man can serue two masters: for either he will hate the one and loue the other, or else hee will holde to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serue God and Mammon. -St. Matthew 6:24

P.S. by your logic, you too should be in jail, unless you think you have been perfect your entire life...
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 07:26:42 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,380



« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2013, 12:57:59 AM »

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.

While I'm not sure about "all sin," generally I agree with this.

Too often people are concerned with regulating "public life" vs "private life" as if there's a difference. For example, "the state should have no concern with what someone does in the privacy of their own home." This is common in defense of pornography, etc.

However, it is readily obvious that the viewing of pornography is no longer only affecting the individual's "private life," but is in fact observably impacting all areas of society (e.g. the objectification of women).

Another example is drug use. One can say it only affects the individual in their bedroom, but this is to ignore its affects on the person as that individual interacts with society. This is readily obvious when drug abuse is done on a large scale, and how it can decimate whole regions (e.g. crime, decline in education, poverty, etc.).
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,380



« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2013, 01:07:40 AM »

but only insofar as necessary to prevent harm to others.
Please define "harm."

For example, are you talking about physical harm alone? How much? Intentional? Unintentional? What about non-physical harm?  Emotional harm? Psychological harm? Harm to character? How much? etc. etc.

It quickly, but of course not always, breaks down to either very arbitrarily defined terms of "harm," or it lets loose a floodgate of criminalizing everything that could be deemed "harmful."
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 01:14:26 AM by Nephi » Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2013, 01:56:56 AM »

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.

While I'm not sure about "all sin," generally I agree with this.

Too often people are concerned with regulating "public life" vs "private life" as if there's a difference. For example, "the state should have no concern with what someone does in the privacy of their own home." This is common in defense of pornography, etc.

However, it is readily obvious that the viewing of pornography is no longer only affecting the individual's "private life," but is in fact observably impacting all areas of society (e.g. the objectification of women).
true, however, in the end it is the woman who chooses to exploit her body, no one is forcing her to objectify her in any way.  I blame the feminists who make everything sound "natural" and as though Christianity has somehow been the gateway to all Misogyny when it is atheists and their idea that we somehow have "reptilian brains" that is the cause of objectification

Another example is drug use. One can say it only affects the individual in their bedroom, but this is to ignore its affects on the person as that individual interacts with society. This is readily obvious when drug abuse is done on a large scale, and how it can decimate whole regions (e.g. crime, decline in education, poverty, etc.).
Again, true, however legislation is not the answer, when something is illegal, people come up with all sorts of ideas that the pigs will arrest them if they go to rehab.  When something is legal, people are more open about their addiction and wish to seek medical help.  Also, there will be less need for violence since people will also be more open about selling it in a more professional environment (after all, how often does one liquor store owner shoot another liquor store owner over competition).  Also, as far as DUIs go, they will be equally as common, in this day and age, people who want to light up are still going to light up.  Plus the fact that with more professional environments kids will be less likely to get the drugs in the first place.

Aside from all of the legal issues, I still stand by what I posted.  The scriptures teach that everyone falls short of the Glory of the Kingdom of God.  If we were to make all sins illegal, we would all be in jail...
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,380



« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2013, 02:27:32 AM »

Quote from: pmpn8rGPT link=topic=49338.msg867794#msg867794
Again, true, however legislation is not the answer, when something is illegal, people come up with all sorts of ideas that the pigs will arrest them if they go to rehab.  When something is legal, people are more open about their addiction and wish to seek medical help.  Also, there will be less need for violence since people will also be more open about selling it in a more professional environment (after all, how often does one liquor store owner shoot another liquor store owner over competition).
None of this "if it were legal" stuff would improve my community at all. We are utterly ravaged by the widespread abuse of prescription drugs. We had tons of "pill mill" doctors who would give away prescriptions to drugs for a fee and no real evaluation. We have many deaths, and an overall decline in the community as a result. Our state finally cracked down and arrested all the pill mill doctors and things seem slightly better, but there's still much flooding in from out of town.

The effects are such that legalizing it won't improve our community's condition. What these individuals do en masse threatens our entire community's health and well-being, as well as our individual health and well-being. So I'm not talking about drug lord crime here, but poor, destitute people with no ambition and no money seeking any and all means to satisfy their addiction. They will, regardless of legality or ease of acquiring prescription drugs, commit crimes in order to acquire the drugs, or the means to acquire them. Unless you want to provide the drugs to them for free as well, and then their characters are still warped to such a degree that the community is wrecked.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 02:28:39 AM by Nephi » Logged
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 235


« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2013, 02:44:27 AM »

but only insofar as necessary to prevent harm to others.
Please define "harm."

For example, are you talking about physical harm alone? How much? Intentional? Unintentional? What about non-physical harm?  Emotional harm? Psychological harm? Harm to character? How much? etc. etc.

It quickly, but of course not always, breaks down to either very arbitrarily defined terms of "harm," or it lets loose a floodgate of criminalizing everything that could be deemed "harmful."

It's always going to be messy protecting rights, unless you simply disregard rights all together. Your right to swing your arm stops just before it hits my nose. In a just society, we will always need good judges to avoid the extremes you suggest (e.g. capriciousness). Solomonic decisions will sometimes be necessary.

John Locke saw the proper role of government to protect life, liberty and property. He recognised that, sometimes, one of these rights will necessarily need to be circumscribed in favour of the other. Certainly, a just society should give preference to the right to life IMO.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2013, 02:55:29 AM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

I enjoyed what he said and agree.  Of course, I am not Catholic, but I do not find fault in what he said.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,146


« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2013, 06:15:55 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

I enjoyed what he said and agree.  Of course, I am not Catholic, but I do not find fault in what he said.
He spoke the truth and it drives some people crazy.

And all this talk about we can't legislate morality is bogus, we legislate morality every day, hell what do they believe our laws are based on? Not morality? This kind of talk is foolishness.

And this whole open homosexuality thing is deeper than just a "christian" issue.

Do we really want to live in a culture where this is allowed to be practiced openly and flagrantly?

What are we now, pagan Rome or ancient Greece? And even they didn't offically legally recognize it in marriage.

We are going to be the first civilization in perhaps history to allow this thing to become a norm in our culture.

This will most certainly be the beginning of the end.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,612



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2013, 06:31:00 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2013, 11:48:41 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking?  I am certain we can find video of a Rabbi saying essentially the same thing.
Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,612



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2013, 12:40:59 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2013, 01:02:03 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  In other words, it was built on Gods law.   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom, but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 920


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2013, 03:09:40 AM »

The only sticky problem here is that not every church or denomination agrees on what exactly is "God's Law." If Christianity can't even agree on it, how is a government supposed to enforce it? Much less with the protests from everybody else? It's like paying a man with a wife and three children more than a single person who does the exact same work- you know it's technically morally right, but the disgruntled protests from the other workers would send you reeling back.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2013, 03:14:10 AM »

The only sticky problem here is that not every church or denomination agrees on what exactly is "God's Law." If Christianity can't even agree on it, how is a government supposed to enforce it? Much less with the protests from everybody else? It's like paying a man with a wife and three children more than a single person who does the exact same work- you know it's technically morally right, but the disgruntled protests from the other workers would send you reeling back.

This isn't really a sticky point.  The nations founders used the basics.  It's a bigger problem when there is no standard at all to use, which is where we are headed.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 03:14:57 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: I agree with the Church
Jurisdiction: Huh
Posts: 290


St. Leo III, Defender of Orthodoxy


« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2013, 11:46:24 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian Protestant principles.  In other words, it was built on Protestant individual interpretation of Gods law.
Sorry, had to fix that.
Quote
   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,
As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)
Quote
but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Some would argue that there are self-evident laws beyond any particular religion. Secular humanists would argue that no religion is necessary to know to treat others with compassion.
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2013, 06:04:24 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2013, 10:11:38 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.
And how does homosexuality affect anyone other than the people involved???  Where in the scriptures does it say we must force our will on others???  Where in the Scriptures does it say that legislation is the solution to all sin???  Where in the Scriptures are we led to believe that our views are to be tied into secular politics???

He that is vniust, let him be vniust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and hee that is righteous, let him bee righteous still: and hee that is holy, let him be holy still. -Revelation 22:11

And Iesus answering, said vnto them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesars: and to God the things that are Gods. -St. Mark 12:17

Then said Iesus vnto him, Put vp againe thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. -St. Matthew 26:52

Therefore all things whatsoeuer ye would that men should doe to you, doe ye euen so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. -St. Matthew 7:12

No man can serue two masters: for either he will hate the one and loue the other, or else hee will holde to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serue God and Mammon. -St. Matthew 6:24

P.S. by your logic, you too should be in jail, unless you think you have been perfect your entire life...

My Friend,

If you look at my remarks which were very few I did not say that anyone who sins should be sent to jail for committing a sin.  But I am glad that you are familiar with scripture because when I said that their is no such thing as private sin, I was getting it from the scriptures.

"For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad." Luke 8:17

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren, it hurts the two individual because it disorders their passions.

As far as whether or not sin should be made a crime, I think you might find St Thomas Aquinas helpful on this topic
"Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfectin virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which a human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike.” (S.T. I-II, p.96, a. 2)"

« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:12:06 PM by domNoah » Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2013, 05:34:42 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian Protestant principles.  In other words, it was built on Protestant individual interpretation of Gods law.
Sorry, had to fix that.
Quote
   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,
As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)
Quote
but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Some would argue that there are self-evident laws beyond any particular religion. Secular humanists would argue that no religion is necessary to know to treat others with compassion.
Your first two points didn’t “fix” anything, they are simply incorrect.  There were Roman Catholics in the founding fathers.  Most were Episcopalian (slit from the Anglican Church (almost the same as Catholic) after the American Revolution), which is self-described as Protestant and Catholic.  So I don’t imagine they were haters of the Roman Church as much as you suggest.

In relation to the third point, I have heard this argument before, but seen nothing to support the claim.  It is, by my observation, an empty point of debate.  With no moral compass, one is left to determine on their own what they think is proper and just.  The result is the exact opposite of what is morally correct in the eyes of God.  If you don't believe me, watch people.  I find it interesting people make this claim as they themselves have been influenced by Judeo-Christian principles and have no experience or knowledge of what they speculate is possible.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 07:59:42 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian Protestant principles.  In other words, it was built on Protestant individual interpretation of Gods law.
Sorry, had to fix that.
Quote
   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,
As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)
Quote
but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Some would argue that there are self-evident laws beyond any particular religion. Secular humanists would argue that no religion is necessary to know to treat others with compassion.
Your first two points didn’t “fix” anything, they are simply incorrect.  There were Roman Catholics in the founding fathers.  Most were Episcopalian (slit from the Anglican Church (almost the same as Catholic) after the American Revolution), which is self-described as Protestant and Catholic.  So I don’t imagine they were haters of the Roman Church as much as you suggest.

Not to get off topic, but (as a Catholic myself) I would call them "protestant and catholic". Capitalizing "Catholic" implies that you're using it as a proper name, i.e. that they are LC or EC.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2013, 08:39:06 AM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian Protestant principles.  In other words, it was built on Protestant individual interpretation of Gods law.
Sorry, had to fix that.
Quote
   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,
As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)
Quote
but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Some would argue that there are self-evident laws beyond any particular religion. Secular humanists would argue that no religion is necessary to know to treat others with compassion.
Your first two points didn’t “fix” anything, they are simply incorrect.  There were Roman Catholics in the founding fathers.  Most were Episcopalian (slit from the Anglican Church (almost the same as Catholic) after the American Revolution), which is self-described as Protestant and Catholic.  So I don’t imagine they were haters of the Roman Church as much as you suggest.

Not to get off topic, but (as a Catholic myself) I would call them "protestant and catholic". Capitalizing "Catholic" implies that you're using it as a proper name, i.e. that they are LC or EC.

I take your good word on the matter.  I am not Roman Catholic so you would know much better than I and it makes perfectly good sense.
Logged
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2013, 12:13:08 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

Or Christians.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2013, 12:15:07 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.



Edit: NVM
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 12:17:02 PM by tweety234 » Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2013, 12:20:43 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.  As all the virtues are connected so are all the vices, if a person starts to eat to much it effects their ability to be pure, if a person is not pure, then it effects his anger etc.
And how does homosexuality affect anyone other than the people involved???  Where in the scriptures does it say we must force our will on others???  Where in the Scriptures does it say that legislation is the solution to all sin???  Where in the Scriptures are we led to believe that our views are to be tied into secular politics???

He that is vniust, let him be vniust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and hee that is righteous, let him bee righteous still: and hee that is holy, let him be holy still. -Revelation 22:11

And Iesus answering, said vnto them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesars: and to God the things that are Gods. -St. Mark 12:17

Then said Iesus vnto him, Put vp againe thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. -St. Matthew 26:52

Therefore all things whatsoeuer ye would that men should doe to you, doe ye euen so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. -St. Matthew 7:12

No man can serue two masters: for either he will hate the one and loue the other, or else hee will holde to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serue God and Mammon. -St. Matthew 6:24

P.S. by your logic, you too should be in jail, unless you think you have been perfect your entire life...


AGREED.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2013, 12:30:29 PM »


Do we really want to live in a culture where this is allowed to be practiced openly and flagrantly?



Would you really want to live in a culture where things that make you happy and give meaning to your life would be illegal? Would you really want to live in a culture where you wouldn't be allowed to express openly your faith In what you believe?
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2013, 12:34:55 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.


Indeed. I also wonder how many times if any Jesus shoved his beliefs on others' throats, by law or any other means. If he didn't then we shouldn't either. After all, don't we want to be christ like?
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2013, 12:40:49 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.



I am no one to judge homosexual sins or any other sins, this is God's job. But I do like his speech. At least he is honest.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2013, 01:51:56 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren

Are you talking about homosexuality or your ordination?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2013, 01:56:42 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.



I am no one to judge homosexual sins or any other sins, this is God's job. But I do like his speech. At least he is honest.

Does that mean that you don't think sin is wrong? 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2013, 02:44:24 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.



I am no one to judge homosexual sins or any other sins, this is God's job. But I do like his speech. At least he is honest.

Does that mean that you don't think sin is wrong? 

No. it just means. I live and let others live as well.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,125


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2013, 03:02:54 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.



I am no one to judge homosexual sins or any other sins, this is God's job. But I do like his speech. At least he is honest.

Does that mean that you don't think sin is wrong? 

No. it just means. I live and let others live as well.

Okee dokee  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2013, 03:18:41 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2013, 09:51:43 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren

Are you talking about homosexuality or your ordination?
"and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" Matthew 19:12

However

I am not a priest, I am tonsured. I am a married lay brother, and I have three children.
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2013, 09:53:36 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex. 

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people. 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 09:56:48 PM by domNoah » Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2013, 10:05:56 PM »

This video is about a year old but Fr Rodriguez really nails it on Church teaching and homosexuality.

And he bravely read it before a secular city council to make no mistakes where Catholics and the Church are coming from.

God bless this brave priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpwP4DkNHU

The things is, it is easy to assume that there are only 2 possible reactions to his speech: either "I agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I like his speech" or "I don't agree that homosexual acts are wrong, so I don't like his speech".

But it's entirely possible for someone to agree that homosexual acts are wrong, and not like his speech (I know because I am one such person).

P.S. I would even imagine that plenty of people who don't think that homosexual acts are wrong did like that speech, because they think it gives their opponents a black eye.



I am no one to judge homosexual sins or any other sins, this is God's job. But I do like his speech. At least he is honest.
You would benefit from learning that pointing out a wrong is not judgement.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2013, 10:07:39 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.
Did everyone become homosexual when I wasn't looking?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,824



« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2013, 10:09:38 PM »

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex. 

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people. 

But what if they do not want to get married because they'd be living a lie, additionally causing others harm in addition to the pain they already go through? Having experienced that type of marital situation I have to say that it's not an overly pleasant experience.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,803


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2013, 10:42:22 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex.  

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people.  


That's a good point I often try to make but gets little traction. Homosexuals get married all the time. Nothing prohibits a Homosexual from getting married if they want to. Marriage is to one person of the opposite sex. I would need both hands to count all the couples I have known where the guy is Gay. Hey, marriage is a tough game anyway. If you don't like having sex with women, get married.

Some homosexual people want a traditional married life and their own biological kids. That can be more important than their sexual fantasies.

Left to our own devices a hetero man will want to have sex with as many women as will have him... A single Hetero man is called on to refrain from all sex until marriage.. How easy is that? We are all called on to subdue our passions.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 10:43:00 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2013, 10:56:19 PM »

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex. 

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people. 

But what if they do not want to get married because they'd be living a lie, additionally causing others harm in addition to the pain they already go through?

Apparently, the answer to that is in his earlier post:

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2013, 10:57:44 PM »

Did everyone become homosexual when I wasn't looking?

Ah. I could tell something was different about the forum lately, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. :scratches chin:

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2013, 10:59:52 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
So you would dismiss it simply based on the fact you don't like it.  That makes a lot of sense, but at least you are consistant.

God has law.  And in the event you are unaware, the entire US system is founded on Judeo-Christian Protestant principles.  In other words, it was built on Protestant individual interpretation of Gods law.
Sorry, had to fix that.
Quote
   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,
As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)
Quote
but the question I have is, just where do you think we can get our laws if not based on religious foundations? 
Some would argue that there are self-evident laws beyond any particular religion. Secular humanists would argue that no religion is necessary to know to treat others with compassion.
Your first two points didn’t “fix” anything, they are simply incorrect.  There were Roman Catholics in the founding fathers.  Most were Episcopalian (slit from the Anglican Church (almost the same as Catholic) after the American Revolution), which is self-described as Protestant and Catholic.  So I don’t imagine they were haters of the Roman Church as much as you suggest.

Not to get off topic, but (as a Catholic myself) I would call them "protestant and catholic". Capitalizing "Catholic" implies that you're using it as a proper name, i.e. that they are LC or EC.

I take your good word on the matter.  I am not Roman Catholic so you would know much better than I and it makes perfectly good sense.

nor an Eastern Catholic.

 Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2013, 01:35:26 AM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex. 

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people. 

I am not suggesting that they may not choose to marry a member of the opposite sex, but that most homosexuals who devoutly follow your faith will live a chaste life, as is recommended by your magisterium (CCC 2357– 2359). How are those homosexuals who choose celibacy not "hurt[ing] the women who are not made wives" and not "hurt[ing] the parents that are deprived of grandchildren"? A sacrifice to God and benefit to humanity would not negate your hypothetical consequences.
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2013, 01:38:10 AM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.
Did everyone become homosexual when I wasn't looking?
I believe you took my post out of context, as I was certainly not suggesting that everyone is homosexual. Reread it with the preceding messages in mind.  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 01:38:53 AM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2013, 01:45:41 AM »

Did everyone become homosexual when I wasn't looking?

Ah. I could tell something was different about the forum lately, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. :scratches chin:


I asked this because of the post I replied to appeared to suggest this in some way, even if unintentional.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,146


« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2013, 05:12:27 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking?  
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.
And who cares about your "religious beliefs"?

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 05:12:44 PM by Charles Martel » Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,146


« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2013, 05:16:21 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.


Indeed. I also wonder how many times if any Jesus shoved his beliefs on others' throats, by law or any other means. If he didn't then we shouldn't either. After all, don't we want to be christ like?
Right, but you don't seem to have a problem with a govt who "shoves their beliefs" down our collective throats now do you.

Your thinking is in no way "christ-like".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,390


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2013, 06:34:16 PM »

As much as I agree with this priest, I cannot express support for this speech, legislation is never the answer, and people should have the right to destroy their body and soul however he wants as long as he is not harming others...

After all, it will not prevent it from happening, people are still going to go to the Anglican Church and get a purely religious marriage if they want and it is not going to make homosexuals willing to repent of their sins, in fact, it is probably going to make them more angry at Christianity.

There is no such thing as private sin, all sin harms other people.

Really?

Have you ever read the little booklet by Father Thomas Hopko on Confession.
He states that sin (even private sin) has a COSMIC effect.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2013, 06:49:29 PM »

I agree with everything Father Michael Rodriguez said. I am glad many here to do, but also sad to see some confusion on these important moral and legal issues.

Michael Voris covered this mans story in three youtube episodes of his show last year.
Father Michael was "thrown under the bus" for giving this speech and exiled to a parish far far away.
Father Michael is one of those rare "orthodox" with a lowercase RC priests who remains in good standing with Rome but focuses on celebrating the traditional latin mass in the most solemn manner every Sunday. (He probably celebrates the Novus Ordo at some point too). This was another reason his bishop was annoyed with him, he viewed the Trad latin mass community as some kind of threat and wanted a way to break it up by sending this priest away.

People like Fr. Michael represent the future of the Roman Catholic Church, and from a moral point of view, also the future of the Orthodox Church. We need them, these days you either get solid traditional teaching or the opposite, if you're looking for some middle ground that makes everyone happy, you won't find it.

So basically you have to take your pick, do you want flat out heresy, or someone who stands up for the truth forcefully?

God bless Father Michael and all the suffering he has gone through.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 06:52:43 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,390


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2013, 06:51:31 PM »

I agree with everything Father Michael Rodriguez said. I am glad many here to do, but also sad to see some confusion on these important moral and legal issues.

Father Michael was "thrown under the bus" for giving this speech and exiled to a parish far far away.
Father Michael is one of those rare "orthodox" with a lowercase RC priests who remains in good standing with Rome but focuses on celebrating the traditional latin mass in the most solemn manner every Sunday. (He probably celebrates the Novus Ordo too).

People like this are the future of the Roman Catholic Church, and from a moral point of view, also the future of the Orthodox Church. We need them, these days you either get solid traditional teaching or the opposite, if you're looking for some middle ground that makes everyone happy, you won't find it.

So basically you have to take your pick, do you want flat out heresy, or someone who stands up for the truth forcefully?

God bless Father Michael and all the suffering he has gone through.



May God enlighten him and bring him into the fold of Holy Orthodoxy.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,146


« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2013, 07:29:26 PM »

I agree with everything Father Michael Rodriguez said. I am glad many here to do, but also sad to see some confusion on these important moral and legal issues.

Michael Voris covered this mans story in three youtube episodes of his show last year.
Father Michael was "thrown under the bus" for giving this speech and exiled to a parish far far away.
Father Michael is one of those rare "orthodox" with a lowercase RC priests who remains in good standing with Rome but focuses on celebrating the traditional latin mass in the most solemn manner every Sunday. (He probably celebrates the Novus Ordo at some point too). This was another reason his bishop was annoyed with him, he viewed the Trad latin mass community as some kind of threat and wanted a way to break it up by sending this priest away.

People like Fr. Michael represent the future of the Roman Catholic Church, and from a moral point of view, also the future of the Orthodox Church. We need them, these days you either get solid traditional teaching or the opposite, if you're looking for some middle ground that makes everyone happy, you won't find it.

So basically you have to take your pick, do you want flat out heresy, or someone who stands up for the truth forcefully?

God bless Father Michael and all the suffering he has gone through.


Thank you for this thoughtful and supportive post. everything you stated was true.

Fr Rodriguez is truly a modern day martyr.

God bless this brave priest.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 07:54:52 PM by Charles Martel » Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2013, 10:06:58 PM »

Furthermore, homosexuality is a sin that hurts other people.  It hurts the women who are not made wives, it hurts the parents that are deprived of grandchildren
In addition to Michał's point, your own church teaches that homosexuals should live in celibacy. If they adhere to that, then there won't be wives or grandchildren.

No that is not what the Church teaches, there is nothing prohibiting a person who has committed sins of sodomy or who experiences disordered attractions from getting married to a member of the opposite sex. 

If a person does not get married for the sake of heaven, as a sacrifice to God and/or to dedicate themselves more fully to God then it benefits mankind.  The disordered use of sexuality does not benefit anyone and hurts people. 

I am not suggesting that they may not choose to marry a member of the opposite sex, but that most homosexuals who devoutly follow your faith will live a chaste life, as is recommended by your magisterium (CCC 2357– 2359). How are those homosexuals who choose celibacy not "hurt[ing] the women who are not made wives" and not "hurt[ing] the parents that are deprived of grandchildren"? A sacrifice to God and benefit to humanity would not negate your hypothetical consequences.

The point of my remark was not to show that being the chief consequence of Homosexuality or to state that those are the main evils that flow from it.  The point of my remark was to refute the idea that the sin of homosexuality is a private sin that has no impact on the rest of humanity.  I provided those examples and I stated that it disordered the individuals passions. 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You'll also notice that nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say that homosexuals are called to celibacy, it says chastity.  I took a vow of chastity myself when I took my vows, but it is understood within the context of my marriage.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 10:07:47 PM by domNoah » Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2013, 11:09:48 PM »

Ok, but chastity outside of heterosexual marriage would imply celibacy.

For the record, I agree that there are no truly private sins (and that all actions have cosmic effects). I am just trying to get to the bottom of what you believe these [non-private] effects are. The wives and grandchildren argument fails because it would equally condemn singleness in any form.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 11:18:48 PM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2013, 11:19:56 PM »

He left the part where explains why non-catholics would be obligated to care one way or another what the catholic church believes (much less base legislation on it).

Would you feel the same if it was a Rabbi speaking? 
Actually I would. I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on others by law.


Indeed. I also wonder how many times if any Jesus shoved his beliefs on others' throats, by law or any other means. If he didn't then we shouldn't either. After all, don't we want to be christ like?
Right, but you don't seem to have a problem with a govt who "shoves their beliefs" down our collective throats now do you.
Was that in one of Tweety's earlier posts?  Huh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2013, 03:53:38 AM »

Quote
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

All non-married people are called to chastity. That is what it should say.
That is the terminology that the Church would have used to say this for most of it's 2000 years.
Than all of a sudden in 1970 somebody wants to try to "adapt to the modern world".

Like many post-vatican II things, its not that it says them ina  way thats flat out heretical, but in a way that seems misguided or as a subtlely different perspective to frame it in a way that traditional catholics would not have even framed it. The slippery slope thus begins.

The catechism of the catholic church is generally a "good book" but at times it tends to be tainted with the old relativistic feel-good 1970's "me generation" ideas. It doesnt quite compare to the earlier ecumenical councils canons and earlier catechisms. Somebody said they thought the Baltimore catechism was too severe...well at least it was not confused about gender differences.

in the words of Ron Conte:

Quote
The Catechism is an exercise of the Magisterium. But in and of itself, it has no more authority than a typical papal encyclical. And it has less authority than a Conciliar document on faith and morals. And yet it is treated by some as if it were the final word on any and all topics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent resource, but it must be interpreted in the light of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, understood to be non-infallible and in some ways flawed, and used as only one of many excellent resources on matters of faith and morals. And the reader must consider that his interpretation of the Catechism might be mistaken.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 04:03:13 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2013, 06:53:59 AM »

Quote
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

All non-married people are called to chastity. That is what it should say.

So, why is that qualified with "non-married"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2013, 02:23:48 PM »

When Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 can mean temple prostitution, all Leviticus death penalty laws were restated in Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy doesn't mention homosexuality but temple prostitution, I just cannot see homosexuality as a sin, God would have made it clear if it was and Leviticus and Deuteronomy show that it was temple prostitution being condemned.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 90 queries.