Posted on 07/06/2015 6:28:36 PM PDT by marshmallow
Father Jonathan Morris, Foxnews talking head, is a profound disappointment.
It is because of spinless men like him that Catholics have learned to accept participation in all manner of evil. Priests like him will never find the moment to make a stand. "This is not the right way.." "Now is not the time..." "It won't work..."
In this clip Father Morris says that Christian and Catholic county clerks should avoid being conscientious objectors and just go ahead and issue those gay marriage licenses cuz "It's the law of the land."
(Excerpt) Read more at creativeminorityreport.com ...
My minister said the same, damned thing.
Can’t bear to watch the video clip of Father Morris. I will stick with on the side of muscular and devout Catholics, like the Bishop of Tyler, Texas. They know the faith and they know their duty to Christ and his Church.
I just got done reading an entire column about gays having sex with priests, first hand accounts, on a gay website.
Stories were many and many stories were gay men admitting they had this sex because they had joined the church in order to become priests, they were in the seminary and it was commonly known there was a pervasive gay atmosphere. Some quit because they felt it was hypocritical and just became gay, some stayed and had the sex and later quit just not wanting to become priests.
Someone said in the last ten years the church has been very carefully screening the new ones just joining, for gay tendencies, in order to cut down on this but it sounds like it’s pretty rampant, which is why I am very suspicious of these priests who are saying it should be tolerated or even accepted.
He’s no Edmund Campion, that’s for sure.
This is sad when exactly the opposite is needed. Thomas More type of defiance.
The church needs to issue an apology to those Christians who were excommunicated for offering incense to the Roman gods when the emperor ordered it. After all, it was “the law of the land.”
Sorry, I don’t know to what you are referring, exactly. I think I get your point though, about the ridiculous excuse of “law of the land” crap. I agree.
I think that is an old example from when it was quite pervasive in the seminaries. The Church is exactly where Satan and his minions have always chosen to exact their damages.
I went on that to see what the actual deal was, horses mouth so to speak. Did not expect to see that, or that much of such stories.
I hope you are right but I do think there is a lot of it out there and it is the reason for the lack of drive to weed it out from the church. They are accepting of it for this reason. That column made it very clear. Many from different states were telling their stories.
In the 250s the Roman emperor decided to win back the favor of the gods by requiring everyone to sacrifice to the gods. Those Christians who refused were liable to be executed and some were martyred. Others gave in and received a certificate confirming that they had performed the sacrifice...and afterwards wanted to be readmitted to the church. There was a serious split in the church between the hardliners who thought that apostasy could not be forgiven and those who favored readmitting the ones who gave in, after a suitable amount of public penance.
In the 250s the Roman emperor decided to win back the favor of the gods by requiring everyone to sacrifice to the gods. Those Christians who refused were liable to be executed and some were martyred. Others gave in and received a certificate confirming that they had performed the sacrifice...and afterwards wanted to be readmitted to the church. There was a serious split in the church between the hardliners who thought that apostasy could not be forgiven and those who favored readmitting the ones who gave in, after a suitable amount of public penance.
The guy drips gay all around the collar...
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
(snip)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
[NB: I am not excusing the milquetoast bishops who do not do their duty...(see this post]
There are many links at google to the problem of homosexuality rampant in the Vatican.
Hey, thanks for the tutorial. I appreciate it.
Time to leave your church
The word I’m getting is that is pretty well shut down in the seminaries now. Good men were leaving seminaries over the obscene conditions and absurd standards for tolerating it. Leadership at seminaries has supposedly been retired out and new assignments have been in charge for several years now. There is also a background check and psych examinations that are required, in order to detect active disorder.
I will say that the rule is the same for heterosexual men and for homosexual men in seminary. Both inclinations must be committed to chastity and celibacy. Regardless of a man’s inclinations, celibacy is a gift to the few who are called to the priesthood. So long as these men never engage in sexual activity, they are acceptable to the priesthood, whether they are straight, or gay inclined.
As any man has his challenges, this may not be easy for the devout, but it is understood that they may confess the extent of their struggle, be nicely counseled, renewed and encouraged to move along in a healthy manner upon the path to the priesthood.
Somebody once again seperating Catholicism from Christianity. That truly shows where they are.
>>From an alert reader:<<
>>Fr Jonathan Morris just announced he’s going to incardinate in New York. His facebook page says “I’ve discerned I’m not called to dedicate my priesthood to the “profound revision”, “purification”, and “redefinition” of the Legion of Christ the Holy Father has wisely ordered. Archbishop Dolan has invited me to start the Incardination process into the Archdiocese of New York. I won’t have further comments at this time.”<<
Key word: Archbishop Dolan.
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.