Posted on 03/18/2014 1:50:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Gene Robinson, recognized as the first openly gay bishop in a major Protestant denomination, has called on Pope Francis to change the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine that defines homosexuality as a disorder, arguing that such a teaching is "the basis for discrimination, rejection and violence the world over."
The Vatican has repeatedly said that Pope Francis is not seeking to make doctrine changes, however.
"If Pope Francis is to be believed in all the kindly pronouncements of his first year (and I do), his good tone should be followed by the tough work of changing the systems of belief, doctrine and religious practice which perpetuate the victimization of those he seeks to serve," Robinson, who was installed as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in 2004 and retired in 2013, wrote in an article for The Daily Beast on Sunday.
The retired bishop shared that he loves the new pope and that he prays for him every day, describing his commitment to the poor as "exemplary and legendary."
He also praised Francis for the change in tone he has brought to the Catholic Church in its attitude toward gay people, most famously with his remark to reporters last year: "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"
Robinson wrote, however, that the Vatican officially brands gay people as "intrinsically disordered." He argued that such judgment is "the basis for discrimination, rejection and violence the world over."
Adding that he realizes that such a big change in doctrine will not happen overnight, Robinson suggested that under Francis' leadership, the church body "may have the best chance at giving it a serious try."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states about homosexual attraction:
"This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "
Pope Francis and Vatican officials have repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage, even in talk that the church body might look into certain cases of civil unions.
"Matrimony is between a man and a woman," the pope said in a recent interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, while adding that "diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care."
Media reports on Pope Francis' stance on LGBT issues have sometimes been criticized, and what is often not quoted is his explanation after the "Who am I to judge?" line:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation – we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby," the Vatican leader said.
The Roman Catholic church = the epitome of the *mega-church*.
One leader, thousands of churches worldwide, allegedly 1.2 billion strong.
If that’s not a mega church, I don’t know what is.
I dare say i think this is something out of your realm. There is a context here you are missing, with thousands of posts, in which i have never seen your name. But you can join in if you want.
Once again you are avoiding the reality that disturbs the cherished view of Rome which RCs foist upon us, and thus, per usual, resort. to dealing with the problem by invoking the anti-Catholic explanation, but which victim mentality further indicts Rome via her products
Try devoting some of your time and energy you devote to Catholic-bashing....
Next time you post another RC apologetic, like Papacy / Hierarchy in the Bible, or attack Prots as in According to Scripture (Sola Scriptura), remember your own devotion and the reproof it results in. If you want more by God's grace.
If that’s not a mega church, I don’t know what is.
...I’m assuming you comprehended my point that mega-church theology is whatever someone wishes it to be...180 degrees the opposite of the RCC...
...I will agree with on this point however...you don’t know what it is...
I dare say i think this is something out of your realm.
...and I daresay, bud, that I call it as I read it...and I’ve never heard of you either, so, when I read someone raving on and on, I offer a useful suggestion...
...take a Lunesta if you need to...
“They are the absolute BEST at spreading Catholic teaching; and twisting what the plain text of Scripture says”
You mean the scripture that the Catholic Church put in the Bible. Or did the tooth fairy put it in the Bible?
I don’t bash protestants. But I do stand up for the Church that Christ started (the Catholic Church) each and every time some PROTESTant starts babbling on about how wicked the Catholic Church is. 2,000 years and counting, most Christians in the world are Catholic, but because a few thousand protestants say the Catholic Church is the work of the devil, well it must be.
“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” - John Henry Cardinal Newman
“Bishop Robinson, there’s already a church for people who want a church that looks Catholic”
You’re right and Robinson belongs to it and it’s called the Episcopal Church.
“Next time you post another RC apologetic, like Papacy / Hierarchy in the Bible, or attack Prots as in According to Scripture (Sola Scriptura)”
The next time I post anything that I think the usual protestant suspects will automatically attack as false religion I will make it Catholic Caucus. That’s the only way to keep haters off boards where they have no business being in the first place.
Try concentrating on your own faith for a change. Why the obsession with all things Catholic?
To be deep in Scripture is to cease being Catholic.
Schaffs more extensive work as to ECF's shows how needful the work he and others did was, and how wrong guys like Newman were.
To be deeper in history than Newman was, is to not come up with the excuses for Romish alterations and additions (to Christian theology) which Newman had to...
If one had been paying attention, reading carefully to see if their own assumptions, along with statements such as the Newman quote could be falsified (or need some modification), then it should have been obvious by now Newman was engaging in wishful thinking -- to justify his own conversion. But then again, Newman was operating under assumptions based in part upon limited work (from Oxford) in regards to ECF's that favored Romish perspective (a kind of cherry-picking of quotes and citation) which the more thorough work of Schaff and Co., revealed was not only lacking, but misleading -- and quite possibly deliberately so. And so the conversation continues to echo...much of the same old same old. But thank you, and other Romanists for providing the ample (and daily) opportunities for rebuttals of various aspects of Romanism.
Any theory -- including theology -- which is refuted by facts in evidence, stands to be reconsidered or adjusted, if only as to wording.
From there...it gets even more interesting, for various RCC wordings can mean different things to different people, being possibly true enough in one regard, but not so true if particular assumptions as to word definitions and in particular --- identification -- are not carefully enough weighed and considered.
Vatican II, anyone? How many times have [Roman] Catholics pointed at that RC magesterium product as being either a work of evil, or "misinterpreted" even by their own clerics?
It must be confusing to be a [Roman] Catholic. I feel sorry for 'em [sometimes].
Thanks, but i am being serious when i suggest you spend some time on the RF, where you can objectively see the constant promotion and cultic devotion to a particular church, and reactionary denials or avoidance by means ad hominem attacks to anything that impugn it in the least. Then decide where the Lunesta would do the most good.
Of course, if your yourself are a faithful RC, as you are not to engage in objective examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, it tends to prevent that in anything that may harm your chosen view of Rome.
He does that consistently ...offering scriptural alternative to various Romish claims, adding documentation from many sources, along with a bit of his own testimony also.
Part of it is the daily barrage on the pages of FreeRepublic regarding "all things [Roman] Catholic", which statements he often shows are incorrect (otherwise known as "not true") even if it be not true *quite* as stated.
Many times this can hinge on just what is "the church" itself, for that body is certainly not limited to the Romish one -- while that one can be seen to have been at various junctures to have been preaching a Gospel different than the early church (up to the Council of Orange, perhaps). Thank God for the Reformation. It was necessary, and can still be of assistance.
Count the threads promoting [Roman] Catholicism, which often (but not universally) entails lumping all others into some heap which scorn is then directed towards by some participant or another, if not hinted at or more openly stated in the posted article.
Every day, day after day for years. It has to number in the thousands, with some amount of repetitious comments usually worse (more bigoted towards those not RC, or those in some manner critical of particular aspects of Romish theology and/or history) than the articles posted, themselves easily numbering in the tens of thousands, among many hundreds of thousands of comments and replies.
Meanwhile, you appear to me to keep going the "getting personal" route, rather than sticking with discussion of whatever issue are raised.
Please--STOP doing that. Or go caucus up -- that's an option -- but from there, criticism of others is frowned upon. One cannot hide behind a caucus designation to shoot spitwads at others.
To be deep in both Scripture and history and is to see the critical contrast btwn the two, with even Catholic scholarship providing testimony against its version of history.
But when you autocratically declare what truth is, then only your version is true.
“To be deep in Scripture is to cease being Catholic”
Oh, I forgot. All the Church fathers were pentacostals, baptists and church of the nazarene. LOL.
“It must be confusing to be a [Roman] Catholic. I feel sorry for ‘em [sometimes]”
Pardon me. We all know the 40,000 or so PROTESTants churchs that have been around for a couple of hundred years, with a new one popping up on every street corner in the country that some loudmouth shyster can pay rent on, are the real church and they all have it right. Just Pastor Billy Bob or Deacon Jerome. All good men of the cloth, gonna get you to heaven.
That's rich....
Why the obsession with all things Catholic?
Why the obsession with all things Protestant?
1.2 billion OPIOCCC strong.
1.2 billion opinions on the pope by 1.2 billion little popes.
Well, they're the schismatics according to the EO, who themselves claim to be the original, one true Catholic church from which the Roman rite split off.
I do feel sorry for anyone who thinks a denomination = the OTC. That's an awful lot of deception to not even know what the body of Christ is really all about.
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.