NYC St. Patricks Parade
#31
(03-22-2015, 11:46 AM)spikepaga Wrote: And this is where we have a disconnect.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You are clearly saying you don't think revealing  the truth (which you call "bashing") is a possitive  thing. You think it's a scandal.  You are free to view things as you wish.

The problem is when people who think like this (Voris) try to silence or reprimand other people for bringing the truth to light.  If you want to choose the path of "pray , pray and obey" that's cool. No one is going to force you to do otherwise.....some of us prefer the path of resistance.

Evidently you do not see how it is dangerous for people to think that a bad Pope is a good Pope. People will blindly follow a good Pope and won't question him, which is exactly what Francis wants to happen when he tries to lay down his "mercy" upon the Church.

"To reveal the hidden faults or sins of another without sufficient cause, in such wise that the person's reputation or good name is seriously damaged, is called the sin of detraction." [1] There is a lot of detraction going on now days especially when it comes to the leaders of the Church among "traditional" people, particularly when it is done in such a way so as to make a mockery of them and to damage their reputation. It is one thing if the leaders themselves damage their own reputation but it is an entirely different thing for the laity to make a mockery of them or to commit detraction against them. Those outside the Church or those weak in faith will certainly be scandalized by this "free for all". The very notion of a "free for all" in the Catholic Church is preposterous!

If your "path of resistance" creates an obstacle to the Holiness of others then you are obligated to give it up. What I mean is that if you are going about scandalizing others by creating doubt and dissension concerning the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church then you are not doing the work of God. If you are going about creating doubt as to the validity of the NO mass then you are not doing the work of God and you are helping to promote the idea that hell has prevailed against the Church. If you are going about convincing people that the current Roman Pontiff does not have universal jurisdiction over the Church then you are scandalizing others; this may be done by committing detraction against him and by your personal behavior towards the Pontiff.

If you treat the Pontiff worse than you would treat your own biological father (even with all his faults) then you need to take a step back and examine your conscience.

I stick by what I said, "I believe that it is better to concentrate on Catechizing the faithful than it is to criticize the Popes on things that most people don't even know about and will never know about."

Source,
1. http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cult...ction.html
Reply
#32
I think one of the best things people can do in this crisis is to start being accountable for themselves and their own actions; this includes everyone in the Church. And when I stand before God I am not going to be accountable for what the Pope said or did, or what my Bishop said or did, or what my Priest said or did; they must be accountable for themselves and I will be accountable for what said and did. If another person scandalizes others then that is his sin but if I scandalize others then that is my sin. I think Catholics should start concentrating on doing their duties rather than concentrating on attacking others in the Church, whether justified or not. By the way, I am not a Church of nice folk so please don't accuse me of that in future comments.
Reply
#33
(03-21-2015, 10:05 PM)AllSeasons Wrote: I agree with previous posters that Cardinal Dolan's actions are deplorable in regards to this issue.  However, I also think that there is a culture of "openness" towards homosexuality within the Church that comes from the top.  If Pope Francis were more vocal in denouncing homosexuality or were just less confusing on the topic, I think cardinals and bishops like Dolan would think twice about doing something like this.

Sorry to folks who've seen me say over and over what I'm about to say, but I have to:  "Openness to homosexuality" is something Catholics should have. "Homosexuality" is an orientation, is not a sin, is not chosen. We should be "open to homosexuality" in the same way we're "open to schizophrenia" or "open to depression." There's no logic in "denouncing homosexuality" any more than there's logic in "denouncing manic depression."  A homosexual can be chaste and as sexually pure as St. Agnes. Acting on homosexual desires is where the sin comes in. Until this basic concept is very clear in people's heads, and expressed correctly and consistently, the Church will forever be known as a "hater" of homosexuals -- and for no good reason since the Catechism gets it right. IOW, incorrect talk about homosexuality does the Church no service whatsoever. It keeps souls from Christ.

Reply
#34
People like Voris and yourself are really tremendously unfair.

When I or any Catholic state facts like:

-John Paul 2 kissed the Koran
-John Paul 2 s ecumenical meeting in Assisi desecrated altars
-John Paul engaged in scandalous actions

We are neither bashing, not an obstacle to "others Holiness" , mocking or damaging reputation since these are FACTUAL EVENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE!! 

[Image: 714ED3EF-3B4B-431F-97BB-81A68405945A_zpspbm26coe.jpg]
[Image: D4BC38C7-A7ED-48D2-A10E-BE993EA30514_zps51u0q52s.jpg]
[Image: 7D6E9586-2DEC-4706-95D2-382BE7926C25_zpssf39mm6h.jpg]
[Image: 780432AF-BB8A-48AD-8DAB-76AB07A83D56_zpsyjec5osy.jpg]

You keep on using words like "bashing", "mockery of reputation" , "detraction" , "obstacle to others Holiness" and so on., please tell me how any of those apply to these factual circumstances???????

Do I need to link the endless litany Popes Francis sermons, comments and interviews as well?

I guess it's much more convenient to bury your head in the sand and lash out at the messenger because you can't face or make sense of the reality of the gravity of the situation.
The only "obstacle" to others holiness are people who try to keep the counterrevolution suppressed by keeping the truth about Francis hidden. If you know what Francis is at least you have the knowledge to guard yourself and your family against his errors and his reign of terror .

And if my "biological father" was beating my mother and raping my brothers and sisters every night you bet I would resist him at all cost. I would not sit quietly and be complicit to his abuse. And make no mistake, what Francis is doing to all his children is spiritual rape, plain and simple .
Reply
#35
(03-22-2015, 04:28 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-21-2015, 10:05 PM)AllSeasons Wrote: I agree with previous posters that Cardinal Dolan's actions are deplorable in regards to this issue.  However, I also think that there is a culture of "openness" towards homosexuality within the Church that comes from the top.  If Pope Francis were more vocal in denouncing homosexuality or were just less confusing on the topic, I think cardinals and bishops like Dolan would think twice about doing something like this.

Sorry to folks who've seen me say over and over what I'm about to say, but I have to:  "Openness to homosexuality" is something Catholics should have. "Homosexuality" is an orientation, is not a sin, is not chosen. We should be "open to homosexuality" in the same way we're "open to schizophrenia" or "open to depression." There's no logic in "denouncing homosexuality" any more than there's logic in "denouncing manic depression."  A homosexual can be chaste and as sexually pure as St. Agnes. Acting on homosexual desires is where the sin comes in. Until this basic concept is very clear in people's heads, and expressed correctly and consistently, the Church will forever be known as a "hater" of homosexuals -- and for no good reason since the Catechism gets it right. IOW, incorrect talk about homosexuality does the Church no service whatsoever. It keeps souls from Christ.

I agree with you, except I would substitute "same-sex attraction" for "homosexuality."  To me, homosexuality implies acting out feelings of same-sex attraction, which makes it sinful.  It's probably just semantics, but I agree with what you're saying.  Love the sinner; hate the sin.
Reply
#36
(03-22-2015, 09:34 PM)AllSeasons Wrote: I agree with you, except I would substitute "same-sex attraction" for "homosexuality."  To me, homosexuality implies acting out feelings of same-sex attraction, which makes it sinful.  It's probably just semantics, but I agree with what you're saying.  Love the sinner; hate the sin.

I don't care if people use "SSA" instead of "homosexuality" -- as long as they don't misuse "homosexuality" or talk loosely about it, i.e., as long as they differentiate between homosexuality/SSA and acting on homosexual desires.  But "homosexuality" is defined as the condition of being attracted to one's own sex, not "acting on the desire to have sexual relations with one's own sex," KWIM?

But re, "love the sinner, hate the sin":  being a homosexual, or having SSA, if you prefer, isn't a sin; it's to have a disorder. But folks who act on those desires should be loved even as their sins are hated, as you say.
 
Reply
#37
(03-22-2015, 10:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-22-2015, 09:34 PM)AllSeasons Wrote: I agree with you, except I would substitute "same-sex attraction" for "homosexuality."  To me, homosexuality implies acting out feelings of same-sex attraction, which makes it sinful.  It's probably just semantics, but I agree with what you're saying.  Love the sinner; hate the sin.

I don't care if people use "SSA" instead of "homosexuality" -- as long as they don't misuse "homosexuality" or talk loosely about it, i.e., as long as they differentiate between homosexuality/SSA and acting on homosexual desires.  But "homosexuality" is defined as the condition of being attracted to one's own sex, not "acting on the desire to have sexual relations with one's own sex," KWIM?

But re, "love the sinner, hate the sin":  being a homosexual, or having SSA, if you prefer, isn't a sin; it's to have a disorder. But folks who act on those desires should be loved even as their sins are hated, as you say.

OK, agreed.  I think people with same-sex attraction should be treated with compassion and charity; however, it is still essential to point out its sinful nature, if someone decides to act on it, especially by the clergy.  I would even go a step further and say that having same-sex attraction can be a cross that leads to holiness, if borne the right way.
Reply
#38
(03-23-2015, 08:24 AM)AllSeasons Wrote: OK, agreed.  I think people with same-sex attraction should be treated with compassion and charity; however, it is still essential to point out its sinful nature, if someone decides to act on it, especially by the clergy.  I would even go a step further and say that having same-sex attraction can be a cross that leads to holiness, if borne the right way.

I would be surprised if anyone found a statement like that controversial.
Reply
#39
(03-22-2015, 07:27 PM)spikepaga Wrote: People like Voris and yourself are really tremendously unfair.

When I or any Catholic state facts like:

-John Paul 2 kissed the Koran
-John Paul 2 s ecumenical meeting in Assisi desecrated altars
-John Paul engaged in scandalous actions

We are neither bashing, not an obstacle to "others Holiness" , mocking or damaging reputation since these are FACTUAL EVENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE!! 

You keep on using words like "bashing", "mockery of reputation" , "detraction" , "obstacle to others Holiness" and so on., please tell me how any of those apply to these factual circumstances???????

Do I need to link the endless litany Popes Francis sermons, comments and interviews as well?

I guess it's much more convenient to bury your head in the sand and lash out at the messenger because you can't face or make sense of the reality of the gravity of the situation.
The only "obstacle" to others holiness are people who try to keep the counterrevolution suppressed by keeping the truth about Francis hidden. If you know what Francis is at least you have the knowledge to guard yourself and your family against his errors and his reign of terror .

And if my "biological father" was beating my mother and raping my brothers and sisters every night you bet I would resist him at all cost. I would not sit quietly and be complicit to his abuse. And make no mistake, what Francis is doing to all his children is spiritual rape, plain and simple .

I stick by what I said. Instead of revealing the sins of the Pope that many simply do not need to know and would not have known otherwise; I would rather teach my kids why it is wrong to have interfaith meetings, why it is wrong to honor false religions and why it is wrong to commit otherwise scandalous actions. In this way I protect them without scandalizing them and without committing detraction against a Pontiff and if they come across these things done by a Pontiff then they will be prepared for them.

The Sede's operate in the same way you are doing there (defaming Pope Francis by saying that he is spiritual raping children, like a Father who beats his children and rapes his children? Really?) and their goal is to scandalize those weak in faith to get them to join their Sede operations. It works, after having such a bad image painted (in their minds) over the Papacy (like spiritual rape, devilry, etc) why should they ever accept it? Hence comes the false idea; if the Church is subject to the Pontiff and the Pontiff is that bad (akin to a rapist) then it cannot possibly be the true Church.

Your not going to convince people (teach them effectively) that the Pope is infallible in official decrees (ex-cathedra) and that he is the Vicar of Christ with universal jurisdiction over the entire Christian Church when you are constantly upbraiding him in front of everyone, telling people that he is guilty of spiritual rape, etc.

I think Catholics need to start weighing their priorities and asking themselves just what they are trying to accomplish when they speak or criticize the Pope in public. A few things that first come to mind. Who is your audience? Will they be scandalized? Are they weak in faith? How are you speaking? Are you giving the Pope the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things on the news? What is your purpose? And does it actually work or are you just throwing more fuel on the fire?

Reply
#40
I do think that going back and saying, hey JPII did this and that are definitely the wrong way to go about it. If people don't know about these things then, they should stay ignorant of them. What's the purpose of telling people?

However, with the current Pope, how does one just completely avoid these kinds of news stories? Does that make CMTV any better than the Mainstream Catholic Media who completely avoids all controversial topics? An issue that he bashes them for?

I'm not saying CMTV should constantly talk about the Pope every time he says something. However, in big issues, how can you avoid it? When he made a comment about the Pope during the synod, that was a big issue and he had no reason to keep his mouth shut. He said something negative about the Pope and then completely retracted it. When the Pope makes off the cuff remarks or says something odd in his homilies/audiences/interviews, then yeah, I can see not bringing attention to those things. Those types of issues will just make people weary. However, other things may get worldwide attention regardless. Which message do you wish to get out in these issues?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)