Posted on 09/17/2014 1:38:12 AM PDT by markomalley
Not to split hairs too much,
but if you read 1:18, you’ll see that
acceptance of homosexuality in a society
IS
“God’s wrath” as “revealed from heaven”.
Yes, “against the godlessness and unrighteousness”, not in the form of same.
I simple unbidden feeling of attraction, if you do not "entertain" it (or permit it to "entertain" you!) and which you do no cooperate with, even in your mind ---- this is a temptation but it is not a sin.
If you cooperate with the thoughts, even just through fantasy, that is a sin. It is an interior act.
This is not true of all priests, or even most. This was true of a minority. Too many, already -—”one” sodomy-practicing priest is too many -— but a minority. It is not generalizable over the whole category “priests.”
I want to give the good Monsignor the Bishop’s spine!
And not one mention of Leviticus 20, verse 13 in particular.
read it again, it’s there
Thanks! :-)
PMSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and yes Fox, will not be interviewing this Catholic priest any time soon. And no invitations to the White House. I’m sure that’ll break his heart.
How does one condemn a feeling? Does that mean an emotion? (note: loaded question— more to follow :)
I like Mrs. Don-o’s answer. Is this Catholic, Christian, or stock-Christian? (entertaining thought/temptation in the mind being a sin...)
It is plucked straight out of Jewish law, not surprisingly. It’s actually one of my pet peeves against Dennis Prager, who I heard speak once of thinking about sin being not a sin (or a lesser sin.) When Judaism demands control of the actiona, speech, and even the thoughts (after they’ve “popped” into conscious thought.)
Interestingly, we believe the very WILL, which channels the unwanted thoughts, can be changed... which is why I believe the very (supposed) nature of homosexuality can be changed.
Today, Cardinal Dolan posted a weaselly, disingenuous written response to those who criticize his continuing involvment in that disgraceful promotion of sin.
Here are the links for those priests giving Dolan some good advice but thus far unheeded, and a couple links for Dolan's response to his critics.
***************************************************"End the St Patrick’s parade. End the Al Smith Dinner and all other such compromised events. Enough now, back to Church! Wear the purple of Lent and if there is going to be a procession, let it be Eucharistic and penitential for the sins of this age."
---------------------------------------------------
"The auxiliary bishop of Baghdad, Shlemon Warduni, said on Vatican radio: “We have to ask the world: Why are you silent? Why do not you speak out? Do human rights exist, or not? And if they exist, where are they? There are many, many cases that should arouse the conscience of the whole world: Where is Europe? Where is America?” The genocide of Christians, who have been in Iraq since shortly after the Resurrection, does not seem to have priority in the attention of many in our country."
"As this suffering continues, many in the United States are willing to tolerate heresy and moral decadence in a vain attempt to “get along” with others. While Christians must 'love the sinner and hate the sin,' there are an increasing number of people who are intimidated into enabling the sinner to advertise his sin. In 1992, Cardinal O’Connor said that compromising Catholic truth for the sake of political correctness 'was not worth one comma in the Apostles' Creed.'"
---------------------------------------------------
(Fr. Mitch Pacwa gently makes a few comments on the problems with the upcoming 2015 St. Patrick's Day Parade, and, in particular, Cardinal Dolan's participation in it.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cardinal Dolan explains why he is serving as Grand Marshall in the St. Patrick’s Day parade
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Explaining My Decision to Serve as Grand Marshal" - Cardinal Dolan
***************************************************
I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
If marching gays are no different from heterosexuals, then why the fuss? Obviously, they must have a plan to project their identity in the parade so as to distinguish themselves from the others. The very fact that they refer to themselves as "activists" should provide a clue.
I can't speak for non-Catholic Christians, but I do know that the very definition of sin in Catholicism involves the will. Things that are unwilled cannot, by definition, be imputed to you as personal sin. Therefore things that you dream, or unbidden thoughts suggesting sin but which you struggle against, or something done by a mentally incapacitated person, cannot be sins, though they be contrary to the Moral Law. On the other hand, even willfully entertaining the thought of illicit sex, or revenge, or murder, or humiliating somebody else, is a sin, because it is cooperation with the corruption of the will. Pleasurably thinking of it is a sin; actually planning it is even a worse sin, even if you don't actually carry it out. Intentionally fantasizing or planning are considered interior acts.
Jesus speaks of these things in the Sermon on the Mount. I hadn't realized that that was also in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that's great. I'm interested. Can you give me a chapter and verse?
Delighted when Jesus turns out to be (no surprise!) a good Jew.
I never ask my RCIA students what their particular orientation might be. But through our detailed study of the Commandments, the Beatitudes, the meaning of the Sacraments, and the Lives of the Saints, every one of them knows what it means to choose conversion of life, and to walk in the way of chastity, before they are joyously received into the life of the Church.
I know it’s a bit late, but in answer to your question for proof-text, I was racking my brain— I know it from a lecture on Jewish philosophers, in this case, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Maimonedes, RaMbaM [his Jewish acronym.] But I heard it in seminary 9 years ago. So I knew that wouldn’t satisfy the root of your question (text.)
But, as divine providence guides us, in another FR post I was drawn back to a site hosting lectures on Judaism called simpletoremember.com. One of the lecturers, Lawrence Keleman, has a class on an unrelated topic (the proof of Jewish Oral tradition...) but in the first 13 minutes of it he builds up to and answers the question, from scripture, of where in the Torah we know that Nurture (particularly Divine nurturing through the commandments) can overcome Nature-— Genesis 1:1.... take a listen. As a grammatical guide, when he says “Bereishis” [the first word in the Hebrew Torah] is in construct state, he means that the Bi [prefix for “in”] is connected to reishis... “reishis” [”beginning of_”] in and of itself is the form of the word ree-shone [first] that needs, grammatically, to be adjunct to another word, ie: “beginning of_”time; “beginning of_”days; “beginning of_”our story. To say bireishis.... [bara— He created] leaves out an object of the construct state “beginning of.” Thus rendering it, literally: In the beginning of [missing object] G-d created. I know this is clumsy so see if Rabbi Keleman states it more clearly. He’s also pretty entertaining in a So Cal kind of way...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/Rational_Approach_Divinity_Oral_Tradition-B/
Thank you, most interesting!
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.