Posted on 06/29/2009 7:47:11 PM PDT by AuroraLeigh
Seven members of the board of Catholic Charities announced their resignations. They were protesting the effort by Massachusetts bishops to prohibit gays from adopting children from their Catholic social service agencies. The seven who quit said prohibition ''threatens the very essence of our Christian mission."
Church doctrine states that allowing children to be adopted by same-sex couples ''would actually mean doing violence to these children...gravely immoral."
If you agree with those principles, according to the Vatican, a Catholic in good standing.
If you don't, you're not.
Liberals raised as Catholics refuse to accept this reality. We think we can be prochoice, pro-gay marriage , pro-gay adoption, and in favor of married and female priests and still call ourselves Catholic. The people who make the rules say we don't meet the criteria.
Sue O'Connell, New England's largest publication for lesbian and gay readers, believes it's time for liberal Catholics to take a stand.
''I know a lot of Catholics, gay and straight, everyone continues to go to church and act like their parish is not part of all of this..."
Catholics who don't agree with church doctrine are doing the unexpected -- sticking around where they are unwelcome, rather than moving on.
The stubbornness is rooted in nostalgia, inertia, and arrogance. We also believe our views are the enlightened ones and Rome's represent the neanderthal; eventually we will get a pope who understands that.
The local fervor to prevent gays from adopting children also shows that the sexual abuse scandal did not distract the church from the rules it cares most about.
When mobilized against abortion and gay marriage, they are a potent political force.
The church in Rome isn't budging.
Will liberals in America ever get the message?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
(Personal opinions here) And a side note, she is attacking anyone who doesn't live up to her ideas of the Catholic Church (personal opinion). Anyway who says that liberal Catholics think that Rome represents the neanderthals?! I don't!!!!! And I don't personally believe in female priests (even if I am feminist) because I know why there are only male priests.
PS I tried to get the meat of the article, but read the full article. :)
“Should Liberals Leave Catholic Church?”
Liberals should just leave.
Seems to me there are plenty of Christian religions to migrate to... for Cafeteria Catholics. If you support abortion and gay marraige, you are NOT a practicing Catholic, so get over it and join one of the many “gay friendly” and activist protestant faiths.
Quit hanging around, attending Mass, stinkin’ up the place. The Church won’t miss you, and with a new resolve and adherence to RC Catechism principles, we’ll get a net gain when the RC faith stands tall and unbending in the face of popular liberal opinion. Just wait and see the RC numbers swell when the Church stands its ground and behaves morally once again.
Phony Catholics: There’s the door. See ya, hate t’be ya.
You can’t cherry pick in the Catholic Church , you can but that makes you a CINO.
Let them leave.
You wrote:
“I am pro-life but not completely (i.e. extenuating circumstances- rape, possible death to mother etc) but this is a personal choice for women.”
Then you’re not pro-life at all. Would it make sense for me to say, I’m against killing Jews,but not completely (i.e. extenuating circumstances- ...)?
“(I am a feminist).”
How many people have gotten to heaven through feminism?
“As for gay rights and gay adoptions, that is again a personal choice (adoption) and let’s face it, if you’re gay you’re gay.”
Except when you’re not? What about those people who were ONCE gay but swear they are no longer? Are they all liars?
“It’s not a medical condition or a choice, it is what it is (science has proven that there are homosexual animals).”
So we’re just animals now?
“But it’s not for the government to make these moral RELIGIOUS decisions for us.”
You’re half right. That really belongs to the Church. And while the government changes its position on these things, the Church’s teaching remains the same - and you ignore it anyway.
“It is up to us to make these decisions for ourselves.”
So I can rape someone if I want? I can murder someone if I want?
“Not for the government to elevate one religious view over another.”
Again, so I can rape someone if I want? I can murder someone if I want?
“(Personal opinions here) And a side note, she is attacking anyone who doesn’t live up to her ideas of the Catholic Church (personal opinion). Anyway who says that liberal Catholics think that Rome represents the neanderthals?! I don’t!!!!! And I don’t personally believe in female priests (even if I am feminist) because I know why there are only male priests.”
But you don’t know why the Church opposes murdering babies?
You really need to read two books by Donna Steichen:
Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism
and
Prodigal Daughters: Catholic Women Come Home to the Church
Re the headline, Yes! Please do!
Interesting post, particularly since you only joined FR today.
Not sure what the point is of your first paragraph, other than to note that you are a feminist, a very conditional pro-lifer, and support the major tenets of the homosexual agenda.
Although you claim to support the position of the Catholic church in your second paragraoh, you essentially contradict your earlier comments. Specifically, how do you reconcile your stated belief that gay adoptions are a “personal choice” (whatever that means) with the refusal of the Catholic Archdiocese to effect them? Second, how do you reconcile your stated views on how it is essentially OK for homosexuals to pursue their lifestyles — given the spurious scientific proof you allude to — with the proscriptions against same by the Catholic church (and the Bible)?
At root, I would call you a troll, but your comments are so inane, contradictory, and ill thought-out as to appear to be the work of a very confused and naive individual or someone aged approximately 14. Which is it?
You wrote:
“At root, I would call you a troll, but your comments are so inane, contradictory, and ill thought-out...”
I personally think this thread needs ZOT Kittens all over it.
Viking Kittens too please!
The reality is that American law is extremely radical: only the communists states have a more radical one. Indeed Roe v. Wade overthrew the Texas law that allows the exceptions you list.
As for gay rights and gay adoptions, that is again a personal choice (adoption) and let's face it, if you're gay you're gay. It's not a medical condition or a choice, it is what it is (science has proven that there are homosexual animals).
Isn't that a bit like saying that bipolar women ought to be able to adopt, because they can't help being the way they are? The standard ought to be what is in the best interests of the child, and what gays want is for that standard to be put aside.
I’m calling troll....IBTZ...
That would be because you aren't Catholic.
Sorry to break the news to you, but I thought you should know.
You are a heretic!
Indeed. Cafeteria closed a long time ago. I challenge her to show me where in Vatican II it states that you can be pro-choice, pro-gay, for female priesthood ect. She’ll never find it.
lol
**When mobilized against abortion and gay marriage, they are a potent political force. **
The Catholic Church is the one and only Church that had stood steadfast against abortion, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia, embryonics destruction for research — and the list continues on and on.
We all need to give thanks to the Catholic Church for standing firm on these issues. Those who disagree are CINOs — Catholics in Name Only.
If they hold the beliefs on abortion, adoption, etc. posited by the article, and act in support of those beliefs, they already have left the Church.
I think you are a troll.
The far left only has one purpose in life and that’s remake the Church in their own image. Not in the way Christ founded it! Beware of these heretics, who claim to be of God when they aren’t. The left won’t be satisfied until the Catholic Church is turned in the patriotic church of america. They had Benedict XVI with a passion.
AuroraLeigh you were a boring read.
Personal choice to kill a human being is a (morally excusable) "right?"
face it, if you're gay you're gay. It's not a medical condition or a choice, it is what it is (science has proven that there are homosexual animals).
LOL! Animals also have an estrus cycle (i.e. "being in heat") that's unknown in humans unless we try to imitate one. And praying mantises eat their mates...so let's see what parallel can we draw from that to excuse our behavior, hmmm? None!
Animals also have preferences. They are also taught and their behavior can be modified through conditioning. They choose, just as we do. Science did not prove that there is a "gay" gene. In fact, studies of homozygous twins has completely failed to show any genetic connection with "gayness," which means that it is learned and as such can be unlearned.
If nature or God or whatever you believe in, created genders so that species can procreate, what purpose do "gay" animals fulfill in the scheme of things?
Why would any human being be lustfully attracted to another human being of the same gender? But you say it's not a medical condition and it's not a choice! So,what is it!?!
Ditto.
This account has been banned or suspended.
Amen kosta50 and ZOt.:)
You voted for Obama, didn’t you?
My thoughts, too.
Hey, hey, hey AuroraLeigh, you're gay.
And it rhymes...
I think you are naive about gay parents, perhaps. See the article about the pervert at Duke U. (elsewhere in FR) who is being prosecuted for child abuse. I’m not saying they are all as bad as that guy, but there could well be far more of this than anybody is currently admitting.
Also, perhaps you do not yet have children of your own? I was pretty convinced that two good-hearted gays could parent a child, and I still think I have met some who are trying, but after having my own I would never say that is best for a child. There really are unique contributions that a mother and a father bring to the family, and it flies in the face of centuries of human experience to deny it. Part of what makes people grow up and face life as it really is involves trying to live with, and love, people of the opposite sex. People who can’t or won’t do that are giving their kids only part of what they need in life.
Moreover, I think there are some who just want to be nice. They can’t tell the nice gay couple that they can’t adopt. That would be mean. Better to shortchange the little kids than provoke an argument with the adults, I guess. The kids will go where they are sent, without complaint, either way.
Of course, as a feminist myself, I can tell you it angers me when people push kids around just because they are small and can’t fight back. That is the sort of “might makes right” mentality that I would never accept if a larger, stronger man were trying to impose his will on me. How many women would “choose” to abort if the child were as big as they are, and could argue back, and beg for their life? Nope, they go ahead with it because the child is tiny and can’t complain. It’s the same kind of oppression that big bullies have been doing forever. So, why would I accept it when grown-ups are trying to impose their purposely, deliberately, flawed family structure on helpless kids, who will never have even the possibility of both a mother and father if the adoption goes through?
Feminist, why are you sticking up for the would-be parents instead of the kids? Do you really want there to be justice for the small and weak among us? Or do you just want to be thought of as “nice” and “open-minded”?
Welcome to FR.
“The local fervor to prevent gays from adopting children also shows that the sexual abuse scandal did not distract the church from the rules it cares most about.
When mobilized against abortion and gay marriage, they are a potent political force.”
“....did not distract the church from the rules....”
The Church is not directed by the local cop or legislature. Rules can be made and remade, some are made to be broken.
Dogma is not “rules.” Dogma is Divinely given and inspired. It is not something that is simply legislated or decided by a people in a legislative capacity.
See, using the word, “rules,” gives one the impression that rules can be changed and they are simply whims created during a particular time, suiting a particular need or outlook, used in a particular sense.
The Church is not a “political force” in the sense that it influences “rules” or legislation. It is not enforcing rules, it is abiding by immutable laws written by God and written also in His creation through Natural Law which is observable.
We understand on FR the use of language and how the meanings are changed, albeit subtlety, to bolster an argument.
BUT if you are ever honestly interested in finding out what God (you know, the One who created you and sustains you even today) expects from you, instead of telling Him what you and your enlightend buddies think of His Law and His church, the Catholic Church (and many fine, orthodox Protestant Churches) stand ready to welcome you back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.