.FATHER RODRIGUEZ: CHURCH TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY .

[Charles Martel]

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

[Santagranddad]

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.

[pmpn8rGPT]

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.

[domNoah]

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.

[mike]

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?

[Clemente]

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

However, I wonder if this is true:

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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

However, I wonder if this is true:

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.

[Hiwot]

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.

[pmpn8rGPT]

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...

[Nephi]

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.).

[Nephi]

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."

[pmpn8rGPT]

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...

[Nephi]

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.

[Clemente]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Tallitot]

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).

[Kerdy]

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.

[Tallitot]

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.

[Kerdy]

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? 

[brastaseptim]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Justin Kolodziej]

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.

   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,

As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[domNoah]

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)"

[Kerdy]

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.

   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,

As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)

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.

[Peter J]

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.

   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,

As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

   Additionally, America is all about religious freedom,

As long as you weren't or aren't a "Popeist". (their term not mine)

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.

[tweety234]

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.

[tweety234]

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

[tweety234]

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.

[tweety234]

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?

[tweety234]

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?

[tweety234]

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.

[mike]

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?

[J Michael]

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? 

[tweety234]

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.

[J Michael]

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  .

[Ioannis Climacus]

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.

[domNoah]

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.

[domNoah]

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. 

[Kerdy]

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.

[Kerdy]

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?

[Justin Kissel]

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.

[Marc1152]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: .FATHER RODRIGUEZ: CHURCH TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY .