Topic: .FATHER RODRIGUEZ: CHURCH TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY .

[Peter J]

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

[Peter J]

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:

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

[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.

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.  

[Kerdy]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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"?

[Charles Martel]

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".

[Maria]

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.

[Christopher McAvoy]

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.

[Maria]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[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. 

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.

[Ioannis Climacus]

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.

[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.

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?  

[Christopher McAvoy]

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:

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.

[Peter J]

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"?

[SavedByChrist94]

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.