It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Church Shifts on Gay People They Have 'Gifts and Qualities to Offer'

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Prezbo369

Church teaching has not changed, which is that homosexuals are welcome in the church, homosexual activity is not, any more than heterosexual activity outside of marriage is.


Yeah so if we also ignore the church's view on females, homosexuals are not allowed to be homosexuals in the church?

Does this mean in the building or just their entire life?

With homosexual marriage not being accepted by the church, does this mean they can't ever be homosexual?

They're allowed in church, just as long as they never ever actually be homosexual.....?

This is the blind ignorance of bigotry on your part and every other catholic that agrees.

Time to join the 21st century....




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I know that you enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance, because it buttresses your hatred of Christianity, but I'll give you one last shot at demonstrating some intelligence in understanding the church's position.

As a church, the Catholic Church has standards of behaviour for participating in its sacraments, one of which is that, if one has not received the sacrament of marriage, they are to remain celibate. Period. Practicing homosexuals are not denied membership in the church, they are not refused other sacraments, such as reconciliation, they are refused access to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because they reject the church's teaching on celibacy. A non-practicing homosexual is not denied access to the Eucharist. These are exactly the same standards that are in place for heterosexuals.

Claiming that the church is practicing bigotry by having standards that must be adhered to in order to participate in certain functions is as empty-headed as saying that the government is practicing bigotry by saying that you have to be 18 years old to vote.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

So we can expect Rome to start accepting gay marriage soon, then? because otherwise you are saying they are justified in excluding folks who believe simply because they are gay. Awfully glad Jesus was such a stickler for religious rules like the Pharisees, right? Right? Guys? Hello???



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Prezbo369
I know that you enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance, because it buttresses your hatred of Christianity, but I'll give you one last shot at demonstrating some intelligence in understanding the church's position.


You quite enjoy being passive aggressive dont you...


As a church, the Catholic Church has standards of behaviour for participating in its sacraments, one of which is that, if one has not received the sacrament of marriage, they are to remain celibate. Period. Practicing homosexuals are not denied membership in the church, they are not refused other sacraments, such as reconciliation, they are refused access to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because they reject the church's teaching on celibacy. A non-practicing homosexual is not denied access to the Eucharist. These are exactly the same standards that are in place for heterosexuals.


And with your church denying homosexuals the right to marry, they're forever unable to actually be homosexual and forever unable to take part in your rituals....and how does the church know whether or not they're rejecting celibacy? do church members ask?


Claiming that the church is practicing bigotry by having standards that must be adhered to in order to participate in certain functions is as empty-headed as saying that the government is practicing bigotry by saying that you have to be 18 years old to vote.


Lol yeah because those two examples are comparable!




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
More people are disobeying God than you realize! Homosexuals pale in comparison to everyone committing these sins! Yet I never see one thread that attempts to bring awareness to this troubling issue.



Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.
Deuteronomy 22: 11-12



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kesallen


So we can expect Rome to start accepting gay marriage soon, then?

No, you can not.

Marriage in the church is a sacrament, it's not just some random ceremony, which unites one man, one woman and God in a union, and sacraments do not, and cannot, change.

Pope Francis has supported the cause of civil unions for homosexuals (as do I,) to protect their interests, but gay marriage can never be a part of the Catholic faith.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

So gays can't receive the Sacrament due to not being married, and the Church won't allow them to be married, so... Jesus must be so proud of the Church's loving stance of exclusion.....



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kesallen


So gays can't receive the Sacrament due to not being married

Yes, celibate homosexuals can receive the sacrament. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

If you wish to criticize the church, I would suggest that you spend some time studying what the church teaches and why and argue from those points, not simply cast vacuous insults because you have a differing opinion.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer



Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.
Deuteronomy 22: 11-12


That's because tassels are FABULOUS!!!!!





posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

I think the issues on this topic are a bit deeper than the surface discussion that tends to happen, which then has a tendency to turn into contrarianism (SSDD really).

Religious folk view the ceremony and union of marriage within their own cultural lens. A perspective that those outside the church are seemingly incapable of tolerating. Then, we have the fact that it is also a legal arrangement with benefits. These two factors conflict on a number of levels.

One is that the church should not have a say in defining the legalities, but it should have a say on defining its own concept. Those that fight against the church tend to focus on the latter as much, if not more, than the former. Many people are focused on attacking religion rather than actual solutions that can tolerant of those with different beliefs (the same issue resides in religion, but tends to be delivered with less vitriol and angst).

The real issue in my eyes is the separation of church and state, which is frequently obfuscated when gay marriage advocates focus solely on the church rather than governmental systems. I think this issue would be more effectively solved if people would stop trying to define religions they have no part, start pursuing legal union without even mentioning the term 'marriage,' and let religion view things in the perspective they desire. On the religious side, they should stop forcing their beliefs into over-arcing legislation and realize that freedom of religion does not apply only to those who consider themselves 'religious.'

Of course, pursuing actual solutions rather than division and dominance isn't really part of 'modern' culture, so that is certainly a stumbling block on this topic as well as many others.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Eh. Gay rights activists aren't focused on churches. No one (or at least very few) has threatened the church in America. Gays want civil legal protections. Sadly the Christians brought their church into our government. It seems only fair then that I can question the church since the church questions me.

In my opinion we need to bring back the Constitution. The church and religious based arguments should be removed from government. If your religion doesn't believe in equal rights then you should educate your children at religious schools. It's utterly ridiculous that American citizens should be left without legal protections because the Christians are so incapable of following their own religion without disturbing others. Marriage is first and foremost a civil institution. It existed before Christianity and would survive without it. How about churches create a new word or use one of the old ones like wedlock or matrimony. Technically the sacrament is called "Holy Matrimony" already.

The whole thing is insane on the part of Christians. I don't tell you how to live. Why should you get to determine my life? Clean your own house before you start telling me how to live. At least I pay my taxes unlike the church.
edit on 14-10-2014 by tavi45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The church just recanted the statement.
Bishops were arguing and they took it all back, gays will have no place in the church.

I'd post it but I'm on my phone. Look at International Business Times for article.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
the war between tradition and progress...it will never end so long as memory remains to remind us of what used to be and spirit remains to remind us of what might be.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
This is yet another reason why I'm happy to say I'm Wiccan.
Be a good person and you're good in our books.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
Eh. Gay rights activists aren't focused on churches. No one (or at least very few) has threatened the church in America. Gays want civil legal protections. Sadly the Christians brought their church into our government. It seems only fair then that I can question the church since the church questions me.


Question away! The issue is how it is all perceived by those within religion. Modern society lends itself well to a victim mentality and that is exacerbated by strong concepts of persecution in religions like Christianity. The incidents where a religious person(s) are actually victimized are used to create a larger narrative. When events happen, like a religious bakery being ordered to bake a cake for a gay marriage, it is seen through the eyes of a victim. No violence was incited, but they were forced to take actions against their beliefs. I understand this decision is applauded by many, but it is a step that will further isolate those social groups. Now, its become a symbol. This makes an environment that is more conducive to zealotry and backlash.

In this context, it isn't about 'right' or 'wrong,' it is focusing on the actual issue of two conflicting ideologies attempting to co-exist. Neither 'side' is more likely to convert than the other, and total capitulation of either side is not likely in the foreseeable future. I think peaceful co-habitation is possible with some concessions from each side, but neither is particularly willing to take those steps as both feel morally justified.

And.. just like any issue, this one is being manipulated for division and profit.


In my opinion we need to bring back the Constitution. The church and religious based arguments should be removed from government. If your religion doesn't believe in equal rights then you should educate your children at religious schools. It's utterly ridiculous that American citizens should be left without legal protections because the Christians are so incapable of following their own religion without disturbing others. Marriage is first and foremost a civil institution. It existed before Christianity and would survive without it. How about churches create a new word or use one of the old ones like wedlock or matrimony. Technically the sacrament is called "Holy Matrimony" already.


For the religious, marriage is first and foremost a spiritual union. The church should have never been involved in the conversation in the first place though, from either 'side.' Likewise, they should not be forced into actions against their beliefs. That is specifically as long as their freely chosen actions do not incite violence. In the bakery scenario, I would like to think our society would simply speak with a lack of business determined by locality, but the division is too strong. Those who support it come in droves due to the publicity, and those against it take it as far as court mandated order against the bakeries will and beliefs. 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still' and all that.

To keep it even, the religious need to understand that people will come of their own volition. It is easy to see hypocrisy, and most religious organizations are seething with it. It is used for everything except what Jesus taught. It is fine to have beliefs, we all do, but fighting against people who simply want to live, love, and grow is against their own tenets. In a bigger sense, I see this zealotry and hypocrisy in far more places than religion. But Jesus taught specifically against how many Christians act and these people can be involved at very high levels due to the cognitive dissonance. Even those who aren't religious will tend to blame the religion rather than the hypocrite. Sometimes both.

We also need to find out how the constitution failed before anything. If it is at the core of our society/cultural story (as I believe), it is a problem that needs addressed directly.


The whole thing is insane on the part of Christians. I don't tell you how to live. Why should you get to determine my life? Clean your own house before you start telling me how to live. At least I pay my taxes unlike the church.


You may not individually, but if you align yourself with a side you will be associated with their actions by the 'opposition.' And in some incidents, it is indeed a case of telling others how to live. Legislative measures are slung by both sides.

I could go into how I personally feel about the actual social issue, but I am not sure its even relevant to the bigger social interaction in play. I think that would apply to every individual unless it was something that everyone agreed on in totality. The intent behind the action of one side could be seen by the other in a much different light, regardless of how the person taking the action thinks it should be perceived. Of course, taking such a stance means most disagree with at least some major piece. C'est la vie, neh?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Yeah that's why I'm not a gay rights activist despite being gay. I just want to live my life like anyone else. Sadly that's not really allowed. I've been mistreated by many businesses when I go out with my boyfriend and I live in a very very heavily blue area.

Its a shame that I'm benefiting from the hard work of gay rights activists though. The whole reason the movement exists is because the Christians in this country can't stop meddling. No one is forcing the church to perform gay marriages so the victimization of homophobic Christians is pathetic.

It's just so tiring hearing people talk about protecting freedom while imposing their views on others. Even here it's the norm. In every thread about racism or homophobia people scream bloody murder about their freedom to engage in bring bigots under free speech but yet when threads come up that actually have to do with real free speech issues, like the Santa Clara hat issue posted recently no one speaks up.

That's actually what free speech is for, the right to speak out against the government. It's not about being able to say whatever you want anywhere. The 2nd amendment is corrupted from its original intent as well. People are woefully short sighted and uninformed about these issues.

The recent post about the lesbian could kicked out of a supermarket makes me want to go around and try to get straight couples kicked out for their PDA but that kind of stuff just creates more division.

Either way your post is very well written. I envy your skill : . But what's the answer? Do I just keep to myself like I want to, risking my own freedoms through inaction? Do I start being an activist, becoming part of the problem? It's mind boggling.

All I want is to stop the insanity across the board. It's just so monumental. Everyone is so god damn righteous and I see myself joining them the more I try to fight for my ideals of peace, prosperity, and freedom for EVERYONE. Hell if a bunch of homophobes want to build some camp in the woods and ban homosexuals, all power to them. I just take issue with being told to mind my own business and keep my love life private when straight people sure don't. Ugh it's very frustrating.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
The church just recanted the statement.
Bishops were arguing and they took it all back, gays will have no place in the church.

I'd post it but I'm on my phone. Look at International Business Times for article.


Catholic Bishops Scrap Welcome To Gays




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

See how easily that whole "love your neighbor" stuff gets tossed on its ass



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Serdgiam

Yeah that's why I'm not a gay rights activist despite being gay. I just want to live my life like anyone else. Sadly that's not really allowed. I've been mistreated by many businesses when I go out with my boyfriend and I live in a very very heavily blue area.


No one is allowed such things to the extent desired. I think that many fighting this believe that they will simply 'know' when equality is achieved, due to a majority of daily problems dissipating. But, that isn't the case. I can't honestly say I am 'normal,' but even as a straight, white male I face massive amounts of injustices. These things go deeper than will be addressed by the approach taken by so very many. The narrative is just defined individually through confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. And just like most cultural narratives, there is a massive avoidance of personal responsibility.

YOU, however, are approaching it wisely. It is difficult to avoid being pulled in by the social riptides that surround these topics, but not impossible. The injustices that you perceive are committed against every race, ideology, creed, and orientation. This is then focused locally towards those making the most noise against whatever the individual feels most strongly about. It becomes a cycle and a self-fulfilling prophecy, but most are blind to it just as they are with any of these topics.


No one is forcing the church to perform gay marriages so the victimization of homophobic Christians is pathetic.


Theres an attack for ya.. and if there hasn't been a case of forcing this on the religious, there will be. That is simple human nature based on our cultural story. Individuals may agree with allowing churches to abstain from acts against their beliefs, but not all will. There will be those who demand it happen through lawsuits or legislation, and that will just continue the narrative. We see a similar analogue with "the blue wall" and police. Groups are extremely unlikely to govern their own, even moreso if moral justification is felt. At that point, the end justifies the means regardless of the reality of results.


It's just so tiring hearing people talk about protecting freedom while imposing their views on others.


The people you are talking about are likely to feel exactly the same way about you! But, just like them, you are unlikely to see it as a forcing, but a fight to uphold what is morally 'right.'


But what's the answer? Do I just keep to myself like I want to, risking my own freedoms through inaction? Do I start being an activist, becoming part of the problem? It's mind boggling.


The answer lies outside of any specific topic, and resides within how we have interacted with each other for millenia. This type of battle has been raging since time immemorial, and people choose their sides based on discrimination that is universal, but specific to individual circumstance. Thus, the sides are defined and the clever can use it to manipulate both groups.

'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.' As a species, I am not sure we have too much of that going on. If you can notice it, people in self-identified groups tend to have the same patterns of behavior even outside of the 'topic at hand.' The trick is being able to identify it in 'sides' that you might consider yourself a member. Its easy to point it out in others, so that is as far as most will ever get.

I don't have a horse in this race, specifically, but equality and consciously defining our cultural story are imperative at this point in time. But, there are so very few that are seeking tolerance and equality instead of dominance and conversion.
edit on 19-10-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Thank you for posting the article, I meant to do it and then I forgot.

Or in a more Catholic fashion - I said I was going to do it and then decided not to!




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join