Gay Catholics, Christians and Allies in Ottawa
July 23, 2010 67 Comments
The Gay Catholics, Christians and Allies at the University of Ottawa is looking for supporters willing to march with the club in the Capital Pride this year (August 29). The club: i) builds an inclusive community, ii) spreads the message: God’s love is in all people regardless of their sexual orientation, iii) wants gay persons to be welcomed by the official Christian churches.
Please join us at the Pride and help make this message heard: all people (gay and straight) have the same gift of love to share! E-mail: clgbt@uottawa.ca
Your proposal runs contrary to Catholic teaching about homosexuality. While you think this may be the “loving” thing to do, inviting people to support Gay Pride, you cannot do this and remain Catholic. The Catholic and Christian position is that we love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus never glossed over people’s sins, but instead, he forgave them but also said “go and sin no more”.
You are confusing people with this proposal, and probably because you are very confused yourselves.
Julie,,,
You are right… whatever got into these folks? The catholic church is clear… Homosexual behaviour (not just being homosexual) is ‘objectively disordered’. You tell them girl…
Now the only problem is what do we do with the outrageous number of our clergy who are clearly homosexual?
Slainte,
Conrad J. Noll
I’m wondering where Jesus condemned homosexuality as a “sin.” That’s not in my copy of the New Testament. I guess He didn’t get the memo.
1 Corintians 6:9-11
“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Romans 1:27
and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
“WRONG DOERS?” I know that Jesus said that the one who have not sinned can cast the first stone. May be you don’t agree with this, but you don’t have the right to judge. rather you should be glad that we are christian still. I pray and ask him to reveal to me his plan for my life, and it’s between God and I. He can judge me, not you.
Steve, the Pauline texts likely refer to Greek pagan temple worship, which often included sexual acts, rather than to homosexuals as such. Please see if you can quote a verse in which Jesus specifically condemns homosexuals or homosexuality. As for Paul, please remember that his understanding of human sexuality was not as developed as ours is now. Paul suggests that human sexual orientation is essentially a matter of choice and most likely would not have come across homosexuals living in exclusive, loving relationships.
The Sacred Tradition of the Church understands homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Sacred Tradition is another mode of divine revelation. In other words, even if Jesus didn’t specifically say it, he agrees with it, as he, the Father and the Holy Spirit (who made Sacred Tradition possible) are one.
God’s understanding of our sexuality is perfect.
Ah, to know the mind of God. You are truly blessed.
Rupert,
You cannot split Divine Revelation between what Paul says and what Jesus says. They are equal as far as Divine Revelation is concerned because Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is also God. If one were only to believe what was said by Jesus in the four Gospels while ignoring the rest of the New Testament, that would yield a very reductionist and limited form of Christianity, uninformed and distorted. Catholicism embraces the fullness of the Truth, which includes the whole NT and the OT.
How wonderful, a welcoming and inclusive Catholic Church, a Catholic Church that is following the teachings of Christ. Lets never forget that
Jesus rejected NO ONE, he broke bread with all, the tax collectors and the ‘sinners’,his message was and is to “love one another” It is sad that so many churches moved away from this message, and how sad the Chatholic Church abandonded the work and teachings of Jesus for those of some
men.
The truth and love will prevail.
Jesus rejected sin. Try reading the Gospels again.
True, Jesus rejected no one, but he didn’t encourage them to remain stagnant in their life. He also said “Go and sin no more”. He calls everyone to a virtuous life that embraces greatness at turns away from sin.
“The Roman Catholic caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has pointed out consistently that the church’s teaching on homosexuality is officially recognised as third level in the doctrinal hierarchy of truths. It does not touch upon the primary beliefs that define a Catholic, and while requiring from Catholics “religious respect – obsequium religiosum”, it may nevertheless be open to conscientious dissent.”
See Catholic gay adoption ruling is a victory for vulnerable children
That is absolutely false teaching. The “Roman Catholic caucus on the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement” has no authority within the Church to make such a statement. That statement carries no authoritative weight whatsoever and contradicts 2000 years of Christianity. It suggests a misunderstanding of Divine Revelation, the nature of humans and the meaning of sexuality, which is meant to be a sign of the inner love of the Trinity.
If we want to be Catholic and follow Jesus, we must be willing to take up our cross and follow him. This sometimes requires sacrifice. As Jesus explained in today’s gospel, we must take the narrow road. To many choose the wide and easy road that leads to perdition. Jesus doesn’t want this for anybody. He doesn’t want us to follow false shepherds that lead the flock astray. He doesn’t want us to modify his teaching to suit our weak inclinations.
Pingback: Revelations about homosexuality at St. Joseph’s parish cause a stir « SoCon Or Bust
To Suzanne, Steve and others who posted views critical of St. Joseph Parish’s approach to this question: what exactly is your pastoral approach to gays and lesbians who have a deep faith in God, want to walk with Christ in compassion and wish to participate actively in their parish community? I suspect that telling gay and lesbian Catholics that God loves them, but they’ll have to either ‘change’ their sexual orientation or be celibate for the rest of their lives is really more than a little insulting and condescending.
Steve, as for the ‘narrow road’ vs. the ‘easy road that leads to perdition’: you’re right, if we’re truly following Christ, then we must take the narrow one, and walk with the same compassion and love that Jesus demonstrated to all of humanity, even when this compassion questions the traditions and culturals norms of the time.
Jesus doesn’t ask us to be perfectionists, fearfully walking on tip-toe along the ‘narrow road,’ lest we fall off due to our personal, sexual transgressions. He asks us to treat God’s creation–each human and the natural world He created–with respect. When we do this, we express our faith in Him in a far more meaningful manner, than if our every thought is consumed with legalism and Victorian sensibilities.
You said, “Jesus doesn’t ask us to be perfectionists”, the Bible says in Matthew 5:48, Jesus says, “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”.
Seems like you’re wrong here too.
Mark, you’re really not looking at the context of this verse. Jesus is speaking about how it is not enough to love one’s friend and neighbour, but we must also extend love and compassion to our enemies. It is a remarkably difficult task to love your enemy, yet we see that Christ did precisely this when he was nailed to the cross, yet he prayed for his executioners. When he says ‘be perfect therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Jesus asks us to show the exact same love and compassion to all–including to those who have done us wrong–despite how incredibly difficult this challenge is. Jesus did this perfectly, now can we do the same?
Jesus then continues to speak about not performing these charitable acts in front of others, in order to be seen and congratulated, but to do them out of pure faith and compassion.
The problem is that many seem to think that Christ demands us to be legalistic perfectionists–living life according rules governing the minutae of personal sexuality between consenting adults and then counting how many times we broke each, as if God tasked us with keeping a balance sheet. In reality, Matthew 5 shows us that what Christ is concerned with has more to do with how we relate to others–God’s children–and whether we are capable of Christ-like compassion and understanding, even in the most difficult circumstances.
A Christian cannot support a homosexual pride parade as these parades support pornography, simulation of sex acts and other things that are contrary to the common good. For those who ask for where Jesus speaks of homosexuality, I ask you this question, did Jesus speak about the evils of beastiality? If not, I guess according to your logic it is alright then. To move on from this illogic, Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus often quoted from the Old Testament as He knows it is the Word of God. John stated that much in the first verses of his Gospel. Also, Paul was called by Jesus to preach the Word and he, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, condmened homosexual acts. For the people who ask the question whether Jesus spoke against it, He did, he used others to point it out. Jesus also spoke about what marriage is, and yes, it is in the Gospel, so again you’re on hollow ground. Before you pretend to be a Christain, at least know what is in the Word before trying to debate it.
Jesus as a loving God would ask St Joseph’s to start a COURAGE group to help homosexuals live out their lives in accordance with God’s laws.
http://couragerc.net/
What makes a person homosexual is not with whom that person has sex but with whom he or she falls in love. Straight and gay people have equal right to love, and to grow through love. The Gay Catholics, Christians and Allies club will be present at the pride with the following message to the gay community: we all are welcomed to be part of the church of Christ.
If all you brothers and sisters who have homosexual tendencies and/or relationships desire so much to have a Christian church to worship while not willing to accept and/or live the TRUE Christian teachings on sexuality transmitted to us by the Apostles; if you, my brothers and sisters, want to express your love for each other in your own way, I strongly exhort and encourage you to found your own Christian denomination, with all the rules you want to have, and stop once and for all trying to change the Holy Roman Catholic Church, who has the Pope at her head, as Vicar of Christ. In this way, we will all live happily everafter and in peace!
Like God, I love you, but I don’t approve of what you do because it is not what God desires.
Sorry my dear Catholic brothers and sisters, but you’re stuck with me. I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, i was raised Catholic by a wonderful large Catholic family (who by the way lovingly accept me for who I am). I am an engaged and active member of the Church. And this might surprise you, but I love the Catholic Church. But that being said, I accept that the Catholic Church is far from being perfect and that the Church continues to evolve. Are the Holy Scriptures perfect? Absolutely! Is our interpretation of the Scriptures perfect? In my opinion, far from it.
Some would surely love for me just to blindly conform to the teachings of the Church. Sorry again, but I take my lead from Christ. He was by no means a conformist. He perfectly understood the will of the Father and he spoke up, he challenged all structures and rules that prevented people from truly being in communion with our God. Taking that lead from Christ, I refuse to accept ‘rules’ that ultimately go against the spirit of Christ’s teaching and the God that has been revealed to us in the New testament.
I will continue to remain in MY Church. I will continue to love MY Church. But I will continue to speak-up when MY Church’s teachings and rules need to evolve.
“I will continue to remain in MY Church. I will continue to love MY Church. But I will continue to speak-up when MY Church’s teachings and rules need to evolve.”
I think there is a good deal of truth in this repeatedly emphasized MY, MY, MY. Of course the ‘truth’ that it expresses is the antithesis of what Christ’s Church is actually about and is instead the proud affirmation of that primal rebellion of Lucifer against the thrice HOLY triune God.
Don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to David’s comment, but I guess simply to say that he missed the point of my message. To help you out: the point that I am making is that I have a strong attachment to the Church even though I don’t agree with everything that she teaches.
DP,
Yes, Jesus challenges the structures and rules of his time. But he established his own rules, based on a higher order and a higher standard. Those rules of Jesus have been brought down to us through the centuries by his Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. It’s teachings on faith and morals are none other than Christ’s. There is no dichotomy, as you seem to believe. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, who is God. The Church cannot err on faith and morals because God himself is holding the steering wheel. To say that the Church is wrong implies that God is unfaithful and has abandoned us, leaving us without the tools to understand Scripture.
You cannot have a strong attachment to Christ and then disobey what he teaches through his Church. That’s self-contradictory.
If you feel that the Church is wrong about Scripture interpretation and you choose to make up your own interpretation, then what exactly draws you to this “erroneous” institution? Could you please explain?
Rupert,
No, it would not be insulting or condescending for Jesus to ask homosexuals to change. The first words out of his sacred mouth in his public ministry were “Repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). Everybody is called to repent and change on a daily basis. We have to leave behind selfishness, pride, greed, anger, lust, etc. and embrace generosity, humility, charity, peacefulness, etc. Change is essential in Christianity.
Since we all fall short, we trust in God’s mercy to forgive us. But we must make an honest effort to try. We can’t remain idle. We can’t be content with being stagnant. We’re called to greatness. Jesus wants the best for us.
Thanks Steve for sharing this important teaching from Christ. Yes, “Repent and believe in the good news”. Repent if you are unable to love. Repent if you make no effort to be compassionate. Repent if you choose to be the first to throw a stone. Repent if you are quick to judge. Repent if you reject what was created by God.
Believe in the good news. Believe that God loves unconditionally. Believe that God walks with the poor and the rejected (even the gay, the lesbian and the transgendered souls). Believe that God is in every act of love, compassion and forgiveness.
Christ has walked among us to help unite us with the Father. All of us who choose to walk in the footsteps of Christ will be slow to anger, and will devote all energies to love and to be compassionate.
Yes, Repent if you choose to be the first to throw a stone.
I’m not throwing any stones. I’m repeating the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been proclaimed by the Church for 2,000 years. If someone chooses not to carry their cross and follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, that’s their choice. But Jesus will be very sad. Jesus was not indifferent to people’s actions, otherwise what was the point of dying for us? What was the point of his moral teaching in the Gospels, if not to call people to a very specific and challenging life of virtue? Heaven is not an open bar. It’s not a free for all. Many are called, but few are chosen, as Jesus said in last Sunday’s gospel reading.
If some people choose whatever lifestyle they please, even one that rejects Jesus’ plan for them, Jesus will not force himself upon them. He will step back and let them live their life apart from him. He won’t force salvation upon them if they don’t want it.
Rupert, I am looking at the context. You’re just limiting it. Jesus is referring to our whole lives. Now you are refusing to acknowledge that this is contrary to what you originally stated. Scripture has a way of proving the moral relativists wrong. The love you speak condones sinful behaviours, the love Christ speaks is to bring the sinner back to him. Big difference. With you the homosexuals sin continues, with Christ it ends and a new, vibrant, loving life begins.
God doesn’t love sin. There are those on here who equate non-approval with hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just a way to try and marginalize an opposing view, and overall, the Word of God. If you are approving of someone’s homosexual behaviour, you are not loving them, as a matter of fact, you are joining in that sin even though you don’t participate in that behaviour. There is another lie that is oft stated, that being, homosexuals are born that way and God created them as they are. His Word simply proves this wrong, over and over. Just take the time to read it.
It must be nice to be so ‘certain’ all the time. I have always admired you Christians for that…
Conrad J. Noll
Thanks. God’s Word is perfect, just as we should be striving. With that certainty, we have that comfort that God is all in all.
Rupert, just to prove you wrong again, look at this verse from Matthew 5, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
You are entirely wrong about Jesus keeping tabs on our sins. Yes, Jesus mentions hell. It is real. God is love and if that love is not returned, we condemn ourselves to hell. Jesus does speak about hell many times.
You equate love and compassion with approval, not so. One cannot approve of sin but one can still have love and compassion by helping that person with their sin, just as we all should do with each other. We all have sins in our lives that need to be addressed and fellow Christians are there or should be there to help each other to conquer them.
Mark, I’m afraid that yet again, you’re not looking at the historical or textual context. Jesus was contrasting his attitude towards morality with that of the Pharisees, who devised a complex web of rules and legalities, which actually allowed them to sin, whilst still claiming that they were technically abiding by Moses’ Law. This is why Matthew 5:20 reads: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of heaven.”
About Jesus’ teachings on adultery: adultery in the bible generally refers to one man or woman coveting another man or woman’s spouse. The Greek word used in this passage is “gune,” which does not simply mean “woman,” but also refers to a “wife.” As such, it might be better to translate Matthew 5:28 as: “anyone who looks at another’s wife lustfully has already committed adultery with her.” When we realize that the Greek word for lust is “epithumeo”–which implies a strong desire for something that one can only acquire through unlawful means–we understand the textual and historical context of Christ’s teachings.
No one here is saying that adultery is acceptable. The participation of a group of gay Catholics at the pride march this coming Sunday has nothing to do with coveting anyone’s spouse, so I don’t really see the reason for bringing up this verse, and then taking it out of its textual and historical context, in the first place.
You’ve missed many points here. You spoke of rules that we shouldn’t be following the rules minutae of personal sexuality between consenting adults, I’ve proved that wrong. Jesus gave us that rule right away. You also seem to think that it is just looking at another man’s wife, more than that it refers to looking at any woman lustfully. What Jesus stated about aspiring to be perfect is for all people and is timeless, ie: not just for that time period. As to your last paragraph, there are no homosexual Catholics at that parade, as it would be a total contradiction on the way they are supposed to live as Catholics.
The bottom line is that you’re encouraging homosexuals to commit sin and it is indeed wrong and unbiblical. I do notice that you keep on saying that it is a historical context, in other words, it doesn’t fit for today. Quite telling.
I echo Liane’s comments about asking those who wish to change the Catholic Church to accepting sin to move on. The United Church is a good fit. However, the door is always open, but if you choose to defy the Word and try to change the Church, you will be stopped and asked to leave.
Mark…
I have read your posts here over the past few days. I actually have no axe to grind in this debate, I am not a homosexual and I am not a practicing Catholic. But I have to observe that the dialogue I have witnessed here would be laughed out of any self-respecting university theology course on morality. Which no doubt confirms for you that you are even more correct than you are already prepared to assume.
Your invitation to Catholic’s who disagree with the narrow view of the morality, that you glean from your gospel proof-texting, to leave the church has been and is being taken up by many, many, many Catholics… like myself.
I believe Mr. Ratzinger himself predicted that the church would become small and poor again (at least in developed countries). He and you and others like you are succeeding admirably in this quest.
I hope you are all going to be very happy in the shrunken and somewhat bitter little church that is emerging in this era. I am sure YOU will be because it will be full of people just like you Mark.
Slainte,
Conrad.
You know what? You are the one that sounds bitter, just reading your sarcastic posts shows that clearly. I’m not the one calling anyone hateful or bigoted or anything like that. Jesus did say that his is a narrow door. If you’re not a practising Catholic, how can you still be Catholic? Universities are predominately liberal, therefore I’m not surprised at your opinion. Thanks anyways.
Now Mark…
Hardly bitter… I really could care less about the issue here
Sarcastic is a bit harsh. But I will willingly admit to satire.
How can I be both a catholic and not a ‘practicing catholic’?
How can an electron be both a wave and a particle?
I am not attempting to be flip here… I am quite serious about the fact that sometimes there are paradox that cannot be resolved.
I suspect you find paradox a tad uncomfortable, don’t you Mark? I have a feeling you like things to be neat and clean.
Slainte,
Conrad.
Whoa.. typo…
That should read “How can I be still be a catholic and a ‘non-practicing catholic’ at the same time?
Sorry for the sloppiness…
Conrad.
No axe to grind? Really couldn’t care less about the issue? I wonder how many people will find such claims the least bit credible…
Conrad, you are a contrarian. That’s a lonely little hobby. Catholicism is what it is. Period. Take it or leave it alone. There really is no argument here. Read the Catholic catechism. If you profess that it is true, you are a Catholic. If you don’t, you’re not.
Move on. You’ll feel better if you do!
Hmmm… A “contrarian”. Well I have to say I have been called far worse…
I read the catechism as a small boy in Ireland under the supervision of some very diligent Irish nuns. I certainly did read it and learned it. It is a curious collection ideas. Is it true? I doubt it… What is truth?
“Move on…” what kind of a christian thing is that to say? I always thought the christian concept was the breaking down of barriers not the erection of them. You know… ‘do unto others’… the idea that is at the heart of all religiously inspired morality?
Your vision of a smaller purer church is exclusionary, only those who walk lock-step with the most traditional and least expansive version of the message of gospels need apply. Well… as others in this discussion have said. Too bad…
it is our church too and you and others like you with your idea’s of exclusion will just have to get used to that I guess. Welcome to the push-back… I am sure we will all find a way to rub along together don’t you?
Slainte,
Conrad.
He drew a circle that cut me out; Heretic rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win, we drew a circle that took him in… (Edwin Markham)
I agree with John, who suggested that St. Joe’s would be better off starting a Courage/Encourage group. .
Another suggestion is to take a look at Melinda Selmy’s blog, Sexual Authenticity, or read David Morrison’s book, Beyond Gay. You might disagree with those who accept church teachings, but both Melinda and David speak from persuasive experience.
Why do people always refuse to believe the teachings that they can’t follow? Why not just be honest and acknowledge what the Church teaches, and then admit that it’s simply too hard to follow? Then at least you won’t stop praying for help, and won’t confuse other people.
Self-esteem is important for everyone. If the “gay pride” parade was about helping people with same-sex-attraction deal with low-self-esteem issues, then Catholics wouldn’t be offended by it. The reason we find it offensive is that it encourages bad behaviour. Those parades offend against a whole series of values, not just homosexuality-vs-heterosexuality. Even heterosexual Catholics should practice temperance and chastity, modesty, etc. If Catholics gays need to increase their self-esteem/pride, why don’t they do something praiseworthy rather than getting involved with indecent public displays?
I have read these comments with a discerning heart, mind and soul. There are many good things which are said on both sides and in some cases I believe that the same things are being said on both sides but from a slightly different perspective.
Let’s look at the facts:
1) Jesus gave us the prime example of love in His dying on the cross for our sins and he calls us into deeper love.
2) We are saved by the mercy of God.
3) We are all sinnners.
4) Sin is turning our back on God…turning our back on love.
5) Jesus said that we should love God, lover others and love ourselves.
Now there are many ways that we sin. If you are not sure what sin is please look at number 4 above. One of the greatest ways that we sin is lust. Whether you are homosexual or not, lusting is a sin. It is a perversion of love.
The Church in her authority (this authority was given by Christ) has stated that intercourse is mutually self giving. This is a design created by God in man and woman (see Genesis). Man and woman were meant to be mates. In God’s design, this is how another life is created. A man and woman cocreate a life with God. The Church in her guidance in Humane Vitae and through Theology of the Body points out that removing the ability to procreate with contraceptives or surgical methods is a sin. This is a hard lesson in today’s sex crazed world but it is a lesson of responsibility.
Alot of Catholics think that as soon as you are married you can have intercourse whenever you want. This is false. Everyone…EVERYONE…is called to live a chaste life. If you are not familiar with chastity, then I highly recommend that you read up on it. Perhaps start with reading von Hildebrand’s ”
Man and Woman: Love & the Meaning of Intimacy”. In short, chastity requires us to look through the eyes of love. Intercourse in a marriage can be a sin if it is self serving and if the ability of procreate is artificially interferred with.
Now to the point in question….homosexuality. The Catechism states: (Homoesexuals) “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. A person with a same sex attraction is part of the Church and must be accpeted with respect, compassion and sensitivity!
At the same time a homosexual is called to live out a chaste life just like everyone else. This means that sexual acts between homosexuals is a sin. So there are two situations…a homosexual who wants to follow the teachings of the church and strives to live a holy life (there will be times of success and times of falling) and a homosexual who choses to not follow the teachings of the church which is more serious.
As for the pride parade, if it is supporting pornography and supporting homosexual acts, then it would be wrong to participate.
Regarding the naively condescending remarks about comments “not considering historical context of that Bible passage”: those who wrote such comments are apparently not considering the *hermeneutical* context, which for the Church is NOT exclusively historical, but which is necessarily based on the ‘analogy of the faith.’
Here I am again, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. My note is short and to the point. We Catholics that are faithful to the moral teachings of the Church also know that Jesus said that TRUE LOVE of neigbour entails that we correct them when they do something wrong. We see this in Matthew 18:
“15 ‘If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you: whatever the misdemeanour, the evidence of two or three witnesses is required to sustain the charge.
17 But if he refuses to listen to these, report it to the community; and if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a gentile or a tax collector.”
Does verse 17 mean that we should treat them badly and despise them? Not in the least. This means that, having exhausted all possible words and explanations without success, the only recourse left is to PRAY for them, because they need CONVERSION. We need to implore the Holy Spirit to enlighten their hearts and minds so they will be able to see where the TRUTH is.
Catholics who really try to be faithful to ALL the teachings of the Church and “to be perfect, just as our Father in heaven is perfect”, may fall many times; but, with God’s help, we get up and keep walking through stony pathways, as best we can, trying to reach the narrow door that Jesus spoke about.
In the end, when we stand before Him, WE ALL WILL KNOW.
TALKING ABOUT THE NARROW DOOR…
Narrow Door to a Universal Church – Where do you Stand?
Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.
Start small, finish big. That seems to be God’s motto. He begins salvation history with two people from what is now Iraq. When planning to raise a really big family, why start with an elderly couple who’ve never been able to have kids? But this is precisely what God does. He turns the sterile Abram and Sarai into Abraham and Sarah, ancestors of a worldwide family which still celebrates their memory nearly 4,000 years later.
In God’s plan, this family was to turn into a mighty nation. An unlikely candidate for greatness, this “nation” was birthed out of a rag-tag band of Abraham’s descendants who’d been slaves for hundreds of years. A poet once wrote “how odd of God to choose the Jews.” But after 40 years of desert camping, they entered their promised land and eventually became a mighty kingdom.
But God had bigger plans still. This nation was not to hoard the treasure, looking down their noses at the rest of the world. That was the Pharisees’ mistake. No, they were to be a priestly people destined to bring salvation to all. This salvation was to come once again from the least likely of places. Galilee? What good could come from a land of hillbillies and fisherman? They spoke with an accent so thick that you could cut it with a knife (see Mat 26:73).
Do you see a pattern here? The best and brightest, the biggest and the strongest – like Pharaoh, Goliath, and Caesar – these are not chosen. Rather, it’s the least likely to succeed, the little, ordinary people. That way, no one can take credit and no one can lose heart. No one is qualified and no one is disqualified. Even the all-stars can get in on it if they’ll step off the pedestal and humble themselves before God.
So all are called to be saved and find their place among God’s people, the Church. The only One who could earn salvation has already done so, and shared it with all of us as a free, undeserved gift. That’s what the word “Catholic” means – grace and membership are unrestricted, universal, for the “whole” world rather than some exclusive, elite club.
That means everybody is going to heaven, right? I mean, how could a loving, large-minded God send anyone to hell? He doesn’t. God’s heart is large but as the Gospel of Luke 13:22-30 points out, the door to heaven is narrow. Jesus is that door. No one comes to the Father except through Him. The map to the door is widely published. The Father issues regular, personal invitations. But people still need to accept the invitation and walk through the door. Apparently many choose not to. Some won’t enter the door because they’ve been offended, even scandalized by one of the doormen. Others won’t enter because it is too narrow-minded to insist that only this door was the right one. Some are really busy and put it off till things settle down. There are many reasons. But there comes a moment when the journey is over and the door closes and locks. Wherever you stand at this moment is where you’ll stand forever.
That fact that you were baptized Catholic is no guarantee that you are now on the inside. Neither is the fact that you once accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.
But we went to Mass every Sunday (“ate and drank in your company”). But we went to Wed night prayer meeting and bible study (“you taught in our streets”).
Actions speak louder than words. Your words may say “Lord, Lord” (Matt. 7:21) and your lips may sing hymns every Sunday. But what does the “body language” of your actions say? What side of the door you stand on is not a choice that is made once, either on the day you confess Christ or the day you are baptized. It is a choice that must be made every day up till that last and final day.
You can’t know when that day will be. Here’s the question you need to be concerned with–where do you stand right now?
This originally appeared in Our Sunday Visitor as a reflection on the Scripture readings for the 21st Sunday in Ordinary time, cycle C (Is 66; Ps 117; Heb 12; Lk 13:22ff). It is reproduced here by permission of the author.
The Catholic faith cannot support homosexual acts because they are a species of contraceptive sex.
It’s not JUST about homosexuality. It’s about the very nature of the sexual act which, obviously, involves heterosexuals too.
Contraceptive sex, whether by same-sex or opposite-sex partners, is immoral.
4 Catholic Reasons to Oppose Homosexuality:
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=9161
Just curious, as a non-Catholic. The Church once supported the burning of heretics. And slavery. And racial segregation. And creationism. No doubt the traditionalists grumbled when these things were abandoned. But move on the Church did.
Why can the traditionalists here not see that time will not stand still for them? When did homosexuality get officially denounced by the Church? Why must that denunciation stay in place forever? And I repeat: Christ Himself said nothing whatsoever on the subject.
John B.,
You need to get your facts down straight, John.
1) Where do you get the idea that the Church officially taught “Creationism”? This is not a defined Catholic teaching. You’re getting us mixed up with Fundamentalists.
2) Racial Segregation? Are you for real? If you had only a cursory understanding of the Church’s *universal* character since its existence, you would never think of such an absurdity, much less voice it in a public forum. Once again, you are confusing certain some small and insignificant geographical factions of the Church (like in the U.S. deep south) with the official teaching of the universal church. There’s a big difference. Catholics never claimed that there would be erroneous opinion by some of its members. She only teaches that she will never officially bind all her members to error. That’s a big difference. You need to understand what we believe about ourselves before you can intelligently critique us.
3) Slavery – This is a very complex issue, and dependent on the development of the Catholic understanding of the dignity of the human persons. Suffice it to say, John, that the Church never said slavery was a “good thing”. It tolerated it for many centuries before finally renouncing it by name. Also, we must be clear on what we mean by “slavery”. It’s not the American 19th century kind you might be thinking of.
Suffice it to say that St. Paul made no general defense of slavery, any more than he defended the pagan government in Rome. It is more appropriate to say that the Church moved away from tolerating slavery in the “brokeness of the human condition”, to a positive renunciation of it. Can that be declared a “reversal”? Not quite. It is more fitting to describe it as a development in the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person which has come to fruition in the 20th century. A “reversal” of the teaching in this context implies that the Church was initially saying slavery was “good” while now saying it is “bad”. That was never the case.
The Church grows in the truth. No Catholic has said otherwise. But it does not contradict her earlier teachings and say what was once evil is now good. That is what would be required in the assent to sodomy, and that will never happen.
Of course, the whole issue of the dignity of the human person has a new slavery today – the chattelization and commercialization of human life where human beings are bought and sold on the market (i.e. through immoral conceptions and artificial relationships). The Left doesn’t seem to mind that too much, of course, since it fits right into their belief in the total and absolute primacy of sexual license — no matter if children have a father or a mother. The Commun-ist village is all they need….and maybe not even that anymore. Right, John?
4) Heresy – The punishment given for heresy is a very complex topic. Suffice it to say the Church has never officially taught that the death penalty is appropriate for heresy — although some officials practiced it. It has condemned the proposition that it is necessarily a sin. It has wisely left the question OPEN to discussion. The whole idea of religious freedom itself is a complex topic, John, and frankly right now, I don’t have much time to discuss it.
John Baglow,
Your comments about “The Church once supported the burning of heretics. And slavery. And racial segregation. And creationism” are complete nonsense. Please provide your evidence that the Church ever taught that any of the above was a moral good. You don’t have it because it doesn’t exist.
And with regards to creationism, wrong on that one too. Please check your facts before you spread your misinformation.
John Baglow,
The Church distinguishes between circumstantial evil and intrinsic evil. There are also many levels of teaching within the Church, not all of which are considered infallible. And then there are unfortunately mistakes by renegade Catholics that have nothing to do with the Church’s official position. These factors account for the changes you describe.
But the teaching on homosexuality is indeed infallible because it is so deeply rooted in Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. It will never change. It is immutable and unchangeable because it is rooted in the very nature of humans, which will never change.
Do I really have to dredge up the many documents about the early Church reactions to Darwin, or the practice of burning heretics alive, countenanced by the Church throughout the Inquisition? Must we argue the nonexistent moral distinction between acting wrongly and not exercising one’s power to prevent the wrong act–<a href="silent acceptance instead of active intervention against evil?
There’s more than a little disingenuousness here. I especially enjoyed John P.’s “depends what you mean by slavery” dodge, as well as his dismissal of the deaths of countless people in fearful agony as “a complex topic.”
My point wasn’t really to re-argue these unassailable historical truths, however, but to note that the Church has indeed changed on every one of them. As it will on the issue of sexuality, celibate priests and stem cell research–or perish. I have no stake in either outcome, by the way.
Sorry, html code is not working for me. I wanted to link the phrase “silent acceptance” to this article:
http://www.catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=25433
Yes, please do. You must be awfully confident in your knowledge of 1) the Catholic position on Darwinism and 2) who speaks for Catholicism. If you knew what you were talking about, you would not be bringing up this example. But go ahead and show your cards, John.
Ah yes, the Inquisition. Listen carefully to me, John. To understand the Inquisition, by which I believe you are referring to the Spanish Inquisition because there were many of them in different parts of Europe spanning centuries, you need to understand that to be a “heretic” meant, at that time, TREASON to the State. Now, not too long ago in the West, apart from its connection to religion whatsoever, TREASON carried the penalty of death…for obvious reasons. I only point this out to you, John, to show you that, although you may disagree with capital punishment on principle, you might appreciate that for many, capital punishment was a viable means of defending a nation. If you understand that, you can understand the big, bad “heresy trials” that you have such a pedestrian difficulty with.
Besides, it’s a bit rich for you to criticize the Catholic Church for ‘heresy trials’ when you’re known as a big supporter of the Canadian Heresy Courts known as the “Human Rights Commissions”. Remember March 2008? I have a picture of you and me outside of their building here in Ottawa when we attended one of their sessions. You see, John, you don’t call your religion “a religion” or your beliefs “a dogma” or your ecclesiastical courts “heresy tribunals”, but I assure you, you have just as must a full fledged religion as Catholics do. And the vigor to which you and your co-religionists pursue your opponents in these heresy trials really does put the Catholic Church to shame.
No, we don’t need to argue about that because that is not the precise question at hand, John. You’re very sloppy for a Ph.D.
Before you can engage a knowledgeable Catholic, you need to understand what the Church believes about herself and what She claims about herself. She does not claim that her members (even Popes) always live up to what She teaches. She does not teach that she will always teach the truth in its fullest form from Day 1. What she does teach is that, per Our Lord’s promise to Her, that she will never teach error.
There are plenty of examples of the Church in certain parts of the world in different eras which have failed miserably. In Germany against the Nazis, even though Rome had consistently condemned Naziism and was, in truth, the greatest helpers of the Jews. In the deep South in the U.S. during slavery in the mid-19th century when many Catholic bishops where going along with it, even though Rome had condemned chattel slavery. These examples, and many more, including, for instance, the WORST example today of the hierarchy abandoning millions of unborn children to the extermination centres in the Western World. That one will live on in infamy. But none of these examples overturn what the Church believes about herself or her infallible nature.
John, my friend, do you really believe that in 1949, those hundreds of black and coloured bishops who existed in the third world were considered “separate but equal” in the Catholic Church? If you do, you have some major coherency problems. Modern racism and eugenics comes from atheistic Darwinism, my friend. Go research the roots of Naziism and you will see that what I am saying is true. It is a heretical and vicious evil. The Catholic Church has always condemned it. We Catholics didn’t come from White, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic stock, either. We came from the middle east.
Moreover, you need to make the basic distinction between TOLERATING AN EVIL and TEACHING AN EVIL. Does that article in any way make this distinction? No. Because the Catholic Church worked within the laws of the U.S. at the time to educate black children under oppressive laws. It reasoned, at the time, that it was better to tolerate an evil than leave these children without any education at all because the State would disrupt any non-segregated classrooms.
On the other hand, if you can find me evidence of school offiicals saying that racial segregation was good because blacks were inferior to whites, I’d be happy to consider your evidence and argument. Even then, though, it wouldn’t matter because Rome would not have confirmed the teaching.
So, once again, John, you a) don’t understand Catholic teaching, b) don’t understand historical context, and c) don’t have any basic grounding in moral theology.
Segregation in itself, however, is not wrong. It is only wrong if the reason for the segregation is to teach that human beings are not equal in dignity or nature.
Darwin first. A council of German bishops quickly denounced the theory, and remained uncontradicted by the Vatican. Silence. Assent. Then a number of individuals were called to account for attempting to reconcile Church dogma with Darwinian concepts, and their books found their way onto the Index (which no longer exists–more change). But, as noted, the Vatican altered its views over time.
Must we argue the nonexistent moral distinction between acting wrongly and not exercising one’s power to prevent the wrong act–”silent acceptance instead of active intervention against evil?
Indeed, that’s one of the questions at hand at this point. Failure to denounce evil is countenancing it. Not teaching the truth is countenancing error. And if even Popes, infallibly speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, are failing miserably, as you put it, who is the “She” who is doing the teaching?
you need to understand that to be a “heretic” meant, at that time, TREASON to the State.
That’s hilariously circular. You aren’t seriously arguing that the victims of the Inquisition were actively conspiring to overthrow the governments of their time, do you? Protestant/Jewish recusancy is hardly the same thing as sedition. (I should have used the plural, admittedly, because I was referring in fact to far more than the Spanish Inquisition–e.g., the so-called “mediaeval Inquisition,” which was in fact itself plural. I recall that a 13-century Pope authorized the use of torture during these little escapades.)
John, Darwinism is a scientific theory or “theories” as John Paul II comfortably observed.
The Catholic Church is not into denouncing “science” or scientific theories. There’s a sucker born every minute — or if you prefer, “science advances funeral by funeral”. On the other hand, She has been the greatest patron of science her whole history, Galileo notwithstanding. What the Church condemns are elements of “science” which contradict the Church’s faith. That’s what happened with the issuance of Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII. Strictly speaking, the Church takes NO POSITION on the physical creation of the world or man, except for a few items which Catholics much believe, including the belief that we came from one man and one woman. The uncited examples that you cite probably refer to theologians who crossed the line in accepting some elements of Darwinism that were against the Church’s faith. There are so many theories of evolution today that a Catholic can believe in some but not in others. I cannot intelligently speak on this issue unless I know what these individuals and theologians were saying. Suffice it to say, that’s why Piux XII issued Humani Generis — as a guide to Catholic theologians and scientists. It was a Catholic priest-physist, after all, who invented the “Big Bang” theory.
No, John, that is not correct. Most of the time, I would agree with you, but some times loose lips sink ships. Pius XII – an amazing Pope – and the situation of the Jews was a perfect example of this.
Also, remember what happened at Regensberg and the Pope’s academic talk? As a result of being academically critical of Islam, Christians got stabbed in the back.
From a practical point of view, John, you are wrong. And even from a moral point of view, you are wrong. Failing to denounce evil sometimes means avoiding a greater evil if the denouncing took place.
No, not necessarily. Thomas More and the Church say otherwise. And I’m on their side.
No Pope has ever failed when teaching ex cathedra. You need to prove it and not just allege it.
She is the Church, the bride of Christ. You wouldn’t understand. It’s a masuline-feminine, marriage of opposite gender kind of thing.
Actually, it was. There was no real separation between Church and State. Heresy was a crime against both. It did not carry the strict meaning it does to us today, but actually a much more “robust and complete” meaning. It is sufficient for illustration and I most certainly stand by it.
Why do you think, John, (in that period of history within a mere 50 years after the Spanish Inquisition) that questioning Henry VIII’s position as the Head of the Church in England got you sent to the Tower of London and then beheaded?
That’s how it worked back then, John.
(I should have used the plural, admittedly, because I was referring in fact to far more than the Spanish Inquisition–e.g., the so-called “mediaeval Inquisition,” which was in fact itself plural. I recall that a 13-century Pope authorized the use of torture during these little escapades.)
Let me say this again, so there is no misunderstanding:
Every person is created in the image of God and therefore is deserving of the respect that comes from being created in that image.
This includes persons who have homosexual tendencies. (I do not agree with the term “homosexual person” because that is a disingenuous term, which defines a person based on their sexual acts. This nomenclature is a corruption and ghettoization of the human person.)
Everyone has had some sexual sin in their lives. We all fall short. We all must get up and ask for forgiveness. But we can’t call sin something that it’s not, or else we deceive ourselves and set ourselves up for many lonely years of heartache and pain – for ourselves and others.
Persons suffering from this disorder carry a heavy burden and the Church and her members lift them up in prayer and thanksgiving that God’s grace is sufficient for them to overcome their challenge – as God’s grace is sufficient for all of us to overcome our own sin – sexual or otherwise.
There are many faithful, Catholic spouses who are married, but for reasons of health or other reasons, cannot have sex any more (or very infrequently) with their other spouse. The message of the Gospel for them is the same as it is for persons who carry the homosexual tendency: chastity.
Now you may say: that sucks. Yes it does. It’s not easy. But Jesus didn’t say it wasn’t going to be easy. He said he would give your sacrifice meaning. That it would “count” in eternity. A person who resists these sins and remains chaste for love of God inherits an eternal crown. “Eye has not seen or ear has heard what awaits them.”
For Catholics, sex is sacrifice. If you’re having it, that means being open to children and when children come, that’s a whole lotta sacrifice. If you’re not having it, that’s a sacrifice too because you’re not getting it..
But without the element of sacrifice, it’s not true sex. It’s false sex. It’s sex for entertainment. And false sex,sex-for-entertainment does not give glory to God, and in the end does not really fulfill.
This is something I wrote about a few months ago as part of the child sexual abuse crisis….
So what is the cause of this plague that has attacked the Church and Society these past forty years? Well, it’s actually not that complicated at all, but it does require some explanation. The problem is rooted in the understanding of sex. When sex is a sacrifice and it has meaning for a culture, there is very little abuse of it. This is because it retains its nobility and purpose, as well as its mystery and transcendence. Sex is supposed to be a language of love, but our current culture has made it a language of war.
Sex today is also rather meaningless. Because of contraception, sex has been stripped of its natural connection to procreation. So it’s no longer about sacrifice. It’s about entertainment. For a large portion of society, it’s about orgasm only. That’s why the West’s birth rates are suicidal and why it is on the edge of demographic collapse. Sex was also once considered a remote participation in the economy of God. But today, we’re into sexual idolatry instead.
Let me repeat: Sex is predominantly understood today as entertainment. And if it’s about entertainment, then it cannot really be that meaningful. If it’s just a “little fun”; if it’s just “casual”; if it’s really not “all that serious”; if it truly is about entertainment, then what can be wrong with a little bit of sexual voyeurism? And where do you suppose this voyeurism will lead, if not to children? After all, entertainment is not serious. Entertainment doesn’t harm anyone, does it? Remember, folks, there is little meaning to sex in our age. And if there is little meaning to it, then why are so many people upset that children are being asked to engage in the entertainment? If sex is not serious, then why is its abuse being taken so seriously?
Hoo, boy.
So a man with a menopausal wife is enjoined from having sex with her because no children are possible? Must a sterile man or woman, even if married, forgo sex for the same reason?
And then this:
That’s why the West’s birth rates are suicidal and why it is on the edge of demographic collapse.
Anyone else notice the racist resonances here? Not to mention the hyperbole.
No, John. I said the couple must be open to children. Every sexual act must physically and spiritually permit conception, if nature allows it. There has to be a “yes” to the question of “If I send you a child through this act, will you accept it” Why do you think that where contraception is so prevalent that abortion is so common? “No” during sex doesn’t normally mean “yes” when you find out you knocked her up. The reaction is “O shit where the hell is the Morgentaler clinic?” Goes against the received wisdom you’ve been fed or are feeding, doesn’t it?
But the Church reaizes that a married couple who wishes to postpone childbirth for grave reasons can do so by having sex during infertile periods. They are not doing anything wrong by not having sex on fertile days and having sex on infertile days. The Church only asks that you respect the body and creation as God has designed. These are not arbitrary rules, but rules based on basic biology and a respect for creation. The only thing the Church insists on is that you don’t frustrate the natural act by artificial or other physical means. The sexual act is a remote participation in the Trinity, John. Physiologically, it means when you get the juices going, you need to finish what you started. No rubbers. No Pills. No IUDS. And no withdrawl, either. Real and “dangerous” (i.e. possibility of children up to God) sex, John, with the unlatexed sexual organs that God gave you.
Depends. If he or she is sterile by nature, no, because they are still open to children. The plumbing doesn’t work, but that is no sin. If they mutilated their bodies through a vascectomy or tubal, then they have to take every available means to reverse it before they have sex. If they can’t afford it, AND the person is truly repentant, the intentionally mutilated sexual organ would then be considered on the same moral level as being a limitation of nature. Sex would be OK.
However, on this last point, I must stress, that the person must be truly convicted of their error and repentant. There might be smirks going around as people read this, but you can’t bullshit God. It’s your soul on the line.
Racist? Modern contraception is the invention of Margaret Sanger and the eugencists, John, who wanted to decrease the black population in the U.S.. I, for one, would like to see an explosion of the population of Black Americans (which is STILL the hardest hit by the way) just to piss her off and make her roll in her grave. Once again, John, you really do need to educate yourself on the facts, and stop watching too much MSNBC TV.
And as for hyperbole on the question of demographic collapse, you must be joking. The only reason you doubt the unassaible facts, John, is that to concede them would mean a significant shift in how you see the meaning of sex and it would likely alter your worldview as well. That`s why you and these damn liberals “cling to your enlightenment and latex“, to borrow a phrase from Obama.
Every statistic for the past 15 years has been showing the same thing. I do not follow the logic of equating advocates for more population with the idea that they have “racist resonances”. Like I told the last Lefty who tried to spew this nonsense, unlike you, I have been the subject of bigotry in my life. So please, don`t try to pull that bleeding heart garbage on me. I`ve been there, done that, laughed it off, and moved on. Stop trying to feel sorry for me. I assure you that I`ve recovered and am doing swell.
That`s it for me. I`m off to bed.
One last comment before I bow out of this discussion. I will be indisposed next week….
John, you need to distiguish between what is reformable, or, as we call in in Catholic teaching “the development of doctrine”, and what is immutable and cannot be changed. It is not an arbitrary classification but a real one.
Think of the Catholic Church as a seed which has grown into a big oak, or a baby and has grown into an adult. She learns and expounds truths as she grows. What she was in her very early years is not what she is today. She is now a fully formed adult (or so we think) whereas when she started she was an infant and so the truths she expounds today were not fully formed or fully understood at the beginning. And this is what Jesus hinted at when He told his followers that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth. However, it still the same tree, the same “DNA”, the same “person”. She cannot deny what she was. She cannot be a “different” person in SUBSTANCE. She cannot contradict what She is…then, now, or ever.
Now to the examples you raise….
1) Celibacy of the priestly state..this is not a doctrine but a discipline. It can be bound or loosed as the Church sees fit. But you are not going to see it loosed and certainly not in your lifetime. In this sex-saturated culture, the Church will loosen this discipline when hell freezes over.
2) Stem Cell Research is fine if it does not destroy a human being (here I am thinking about adult stem cell research). If it’s embryonic stem cell research, it’s abortion. The Church can never countenance murder, John. You will never see that change. EVER. It is a moral commandment of God not to murder. Catholics don’t approve of murder, John.
And let me close by saying one more thing, if I may. Contraception has been around since Genesis. If you’re a creationist or darwinist reading this, I want you to count back to when man Onan first appeard on this earth. That’s how long Judeo-Christian history has condemned the practice. Now, back in the 1930-60s when almost every Christian church was reversing their teaching on this subject, the Catholic Church basically stood alone in upholding the constant witness of the Christianity over a millenia. Now conservatives and honest non-Christians are admitting that the Church was right, given the societal and moral collapse around us. Every social ill that we are experiencing – or almost all of them – derives from – either directly or indirectly – from the acceptance of the contraceptive act in principle. It was the Catholic Church alone who correctly prophesized what would happen to women, to society, and to children if contraception was accepted into law (a relatively new phenomenon to be honest). Until 1930, all Christian Churches had condemned its practice until the Anglicans caved at Lambeth in that year. Before Trudeau, contraception was actually illegal in Canada. In 40 years, we have gone from outlawing contraception to same-sex marriage. That’s no coincidence, my friend. And where we are going to go in the brave new world is anyone’s guess too.
What is my point? Simply this: the issue of contraception and the Church’s steadfast opposition to it – and refusal to bend these past 50 years – is proof positive of her divine foundation. It’s been thousands of years, we’ve held this position. It will be thousands more and we will still hold to it. If you’re a betting man, where are you going to place your bets?
No contraceptive act will ever be accepted by the Church, for the simple reason, that it would overturn not only all her moral teachings on the family, but it would affect much of her doctrinal theology as well. It’s all tied together in a beautiful quilt – every piece attaching and clinging to another.
The gates of hell won’t prevail. That’s Jesus’ promise, and I believe Him. So far, He’s been right on. Why should I doubt the Son of God’s word and place my trust in stupid and sinful men instead – men who are on the way to eternal damnation?
If anyone reading this believes the Church will eventually change on this point or any point which concerns an immutable truth, I want you to understand and mark this very clearly: you will breathe your last breath and the Church will still hold to this teaching. Mark my words now, in ten years time from this date, and on your death bed.
If you’re Catholic and you have homosexual tendencies, call on God and his Mother to help you turn away from these acts. You are a person created in God’s image. Do not trade the truth of who you are for a lie. Eternal separation from God is a real possibility. God does not force anyone to be with Him for all eternity. And He’s not going to change who He is, therefore, you need to change who you are to conform to His image. That is the purpose of your life. Everything else, as St. Paul says, is “dung”.
God bless you in your struggle. There is no hatred in my heart for any of you, but a firm prayer and desire that you accept the Church’s teaching, live it, and become the saints that God has called you to be.
Bravo, John Pacheco, for your fantastic replies! It is US who have to change, not the Church!
My dear brother David, on August 26 you said: “I will continue to remain in MY Church. I will continue to love MY Church. But I will continue to speak-up when MY Church’s teachings and rules need to evolve.”
Well, yesterday it just came to my mind that you, David, are looking at the Church from the wrong side by calling Her “MY Church”. It is not YOUR Church, as it is not MY Church either. It is Christ’s Church. The Church does not belong to us, WE belong to the Church. Therefore, to be incorporated to Her, to belong to the Catholic Church we have to accept and do what SHE teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not the other way around.
As Jesus Himself said: “Whoever wants to come after me, let him renounce himself everyday, take up his cross and follow me.”
Jesus never promised a bed or roses but preached a life a renunciation and sacrifice in order to get through the famous “narrow gate”. In order to obey the will of His Father, He suffered the death of the cross. If His obedience went as far as that, who are we not to obey the teachings of His Bride, our Holy Mother Church?