Posted on 06/15/2013 7:50:38 PM PDT by marshmallow
It’s St. Sebastian’s Angels all over again. But much worse. In Rome! A gay hookup site specifically tailored for priests and seminarians in ROME! Good Heavens what is to become of us?:
It is not easy to talk about some things, but Pope Francis’ statement of a gay lobby in the Catholic Church draws waves. As the Catholic writer, Vittorio Messori made known, there is a page on the Internet called Venerabilis which is run by a fraternity of Homo-Sensitive Roman Catholic Priests.
(Excerpt) Read more at veneremurcernui.wordpress.com ...
Homosexual men...are attracted to homosexual men, not boys. Pedophile, homosexual men are attracted to boys. I sure hope we’re not concluding that all homosexual men are pedophiles.
you wrote:
“I assume you’re familiar with Damian’s Book of Gomorrah?”
Most likely much more so than you.
“The immorality of many of the Roman clergy and the tolerance of it...is it any different from what Martin Luther saw?”
Yes. Luther complained mostly about the clergy’s greed - which would later be shown to be hypocritical considering his own choices in life as a Protestant. If you read the 95 Theses you’ll see that Luther did not assume that homosexuality was a major problem in the clergy. Peter’s complaint was entirely different. Apparently you’re not as familiar with either set of complaints as you might think.
“I can only imagine what an albatross these clergymen are around the neck of the collective Catholic church and thus makes me wonder why the laity are not marching with torches and pitch forks so to speak.”
Because they have no one to march against - these people have not been identified and no one even knows is this is real at this point. Also, why don’t you ask why conservatives aren’t marching on Washington DC right now. Where’s the outrage? Where are those pitchforks while our country is turned into a banana republic?
“I don’t know how much of it is true either. What I do know is that the Church will go on no matter what. Satan can’t destroy it.”
The Church, sure. But Christ Himself removes “lamp stands” from churches in Revelation.
The Catholic Church is THE Church. Christ isn’t ever removing anything from the Catholic Church because it is His bride.
Well...are you implying that all the churches in Revelation are not Catholic Churches? :-)
Christ will keep His Church pure if it means taking away the lamp stand of Rome, as surely as He took it from other Churches. His Gathering will continue according to plan.
you wrote:
“Well...are you implying that all the churches in Revelation are not Catholic Churches?”
The churches in Revelation are symbolic.
“Christ will keep His Church pure if it means taking away the lamp stand of Rome, as surely as He took it from other Churches.”
The Catholic Church is pure - the people in it not necessarily so.
“His Gathering will continue according to plan.”
And as always the Catholic Church is at the center of that plan. Hence, the very first paragraph of the Catechism:
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
From Catholic Historian Ludwig von Pastor:
“But it is a mistake to suppose that the corruption of the clergy was worse in Rome than elsewhere; there is documentary evidence of the immorality of the priests in almost every town in the Italian peninsula. In many places–Venice, for instance–matters were far worse than in Rome. No wonder, as contemporary writers sadly testify, the influence of the clergy had declined, and that in many places hardly any respect was shown for the priesthood. Their immorality was so gross that suggestions in favor of allowing priests to marry began to be heard... The three essential vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience were in some convents almost entirely disregarded.”
What does Luther's hypocrisy or whether conservatives march have to do the point at hand? Nothing. And the question goes unanswered:
“The immorality of many of the Roman clergy and the tolerance of it...is it any different from what Martin Luther saw?”
“The churches in Revelation are symbolic.”
Darn strange God used real cities to be symbolic... but then maybe my geography is not what it used to be. What do the Churches symbolize? What do the lamp stands symbolize? Are the complaints of Christ and the compliments of Christ also symbolic? How do you know what the answer to these questions is...?
“The Catholic Church is pure - the people in it not necessarily so.”
How does that work? Without a single person, how is that a “gathering”? If you strip out all the people who make up the Church and the Bride of Christ, what is left? A gathering without people? A wedding gown with no one in it? How do you know the Church doesn’t include people? Without people, what is the Church?
“Hence, the very first paragraph of the Catechism:”
All well and good, but not inspired Scripture.
The TRUE church, the body of believers, is the Bride of Christ, not the organization filled with rampant immorality within its clergy.
How can this be?
Haven't we been assured that the immorality within the priesthood has been addressed and things are changing?
Tell me it ain't so?
Your quote in no way negates what I said. Read about Luther’s complaints and you’ll see he wasn’t particularly focused on homosexuality to say the least.
“What does Luther’s hypocrisy or whether conservatives march have to do the point at hand?”
You brought him up (”...is it any different from what Martin Luther saw?”) - incorrectly since he did not complain about the same thing that Peter Damian did. So, you were wrong when you brought him up and you’re wrong by complaining that I pointed out his hypocrisy.
And I answered the question. Perhaps you need to learn how to read. I’ll post the same answer which I already posted to the questions which you are falsely claiming went “unanswered”:
[Question from anti-Catholic which was already answered in post #42] “The immorality of many of the Roman clergy and the tolerance of it...is it any different from what Martin Luther saw?”
{Answer as given, word for word in Post #42] “Yes. Luther complained mostly about the clergy’s greed - which would later be shown to be hypocritical considering his own choices in life as a Protestant. If you read the 95 Theses you’ll see that Luther did not assume that homosexuality was a major problem in the clergy. Peter’s complaint was entirely different. Apparently you’re not as familiar with either set of complaints as you might think.”
Maybe you just don’t know what the word “Yes” means.
I have heard whispered comments of “the sisterhood”, and they were not talking about the nuns.
you wrote:
“Darn strange God used real cities to be symbolic...”
He usually does use real things as symbols - or have you never read the Bible before?
“...but then maybe my geography is not what it used to be.”
Could be.
“What do the Churches symbolize?”
Are you kidding me? Don’t you own a Bible? Do you have a study Bible of any worth at all?
Since you apparently know nothing at all about the Bible, perhaps you should start with baby steps. Here is the Wikipedia breakdown:
1.Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) - the church that had forsaken its first love (2:4).
2.Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11) - the church that would suffer persecution (2:10).
3.Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) - the church that needed to repent (2:16).
4.Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29) - the church that had a false prophetess (2:20).
5.Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6) - the church that had fallen asleep (3:2).
6.Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13) - the church that had endured patiently (3:10).
7.Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) - the church that was lukewarm and insipid (to God) (3:16).
“What do the lamp stands symbolize?”
Again, do you not have a Bible???? Have you never read it?
“Are the complaints of Christ and the compliments of Christ also symbolic?”
Again, do YOU NOT HAVE A BIBLE????
“How do you know what the answer to these questions is...?”
Simple. I read. Crack open your Bible and you might learn something. Have you honestly never read the Bible?
“How does that work?”
Simply, because it is God’s work.
“Without a single person, how is that a “gathering”?”
I never said anything about “Without a single person,” so maybe you should address what I actually wrote rather than ask questions of me about something I never wrote.
“If you strip out all the people who make up the Church and the Bride of Christ, what is left?”
1) Why and how would you strip the Church of her members?
2) Why would you assume there would be something left?
“A gathering without people?”
I never said anything about a “gathering” without people. You’re making things up out of thin air.
“A wedding gown with no one in it?”
Again, I never said anything about a wedding gown so again you are just making things up out of thin air.
“How do you know the Church doesn’t include people?”
How do you know I ever claimed she doesn’t? I said the EXACT opposite in fact. I often am amazed at how Protestant anti-Catholics start making things up when they debate with a Catholic. I’m seeing it here now.
“Without people, what is the Church?”
Who suggested that? Who?????
“All well and good, but not inspired Scripture.”
You’re not inspired either - but, unlike you, the Catechism makes sense and it doesn’t babble nonsensically about things people never actually said.
When you can show me where I EVER claimed what you claimed I did, get back to me. I suggest you seriously consider how wrong it is to post utter falsehoods as you have and ask God for His forgiveness.
“I have heard whispered comments of “the sisterhood”, and they were not talking about the nuns.”
Must have heard it from The Internet Whisperer, eh?
;-)
The Church, THE Church was founded by Christ, and while on her pilgrimage on Earth, she still will have to grapple with sinners within her. Every church, ecclesial community and sect - including your sect - has sinners in them. You’re one of those sinners. So am I. Get used to the truth.
No, I’m not saying all homosexual men are pedophiles. A great many, though, are pederasts (or I understand the psychological category is “ephebophiles”) -— men who seek adolescent males. Historically, cross-culturally, this has been the most common, dominant form of male homosexuality.
Catholic historians note what a sink hole of clergy sexual immorality (hetero and homo) Rome was in Luther's day.
Defend it, explain it, ignore it, rationalize it, but there it is for all the world to see.
Hang up them dancin’ shoes.
You’re right. Pederasty is the more accurate word. However, I still don’t think we know enough to say that a “great many” homosexual men are pederasts. What is a “great many”? Are there reliable statistics to even prove this? That statement just sounds like saying “a great many” heterosexual men have sexual relationships with adolescent girls. Would we say that?
You wrote:
“Vlady, if I wanted a tap dance I would watch an old musical.”
keep-your-change, you’ll pretty much be happy with what you get because that’s what I’ll give you.
“Catholic historians note what a sink hole of clergy sexual immorality (hetero and homo) Rome was in Luther’s day.”
Is that what Luther said? If it isn’t, then it doesn’t work with what you said about Luther. So, sorry, you’re stuck. Facts make that happen with you quite often.
“Defend it, explain it, ignore it, rationalize it, but there it is for all the world to see.”
What’s there is that you apparently can’t produce the evidence from Luther which your claim would have to have been based on if it were true. Thus, you have failed. And, most likely, you will continue to do so.
“Hang up them dancin’ shoes.”
No, I’ll just keep dancing all over you. And you’ll like it. Want something different? Post some relevant info from Luther. Got any?
Oh Vlad, so, so touchy when I ask a simple question. Instead of answers, insults. When you cracked open your Bible, did you read this... and is it symbolic, or did Christ mean what He commanded? I ain't seeing it in your reply.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”Jesus Christ, John 13:34-35
I asked you those questions because you stated the churches in Revelation is symbolic. I asked you to defend with facts your claims. You did not. Christ addressed 7 real churches, all clustered together. He had a message for each. Instead of Wikipedia, maybe crack the real Bible. Instead of just attacking a brother in Christ, have a real conversation. You stated the Church was pure, but the people were not. I asked if you take away the people, what is left that is pure. You did not answer. I wish better for you and for all the Church.
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.