Replies

St. Polycarp had the right to call someone a "child of the devil", because Polycarp was a saint of God and was blessed with that charism. I am not. Therefore, I'll leave that sort of thing to the real saints out there.

Polycarp wasn't a saint yet when he said it. Was he given a special charism? Yes. But the existence of that charism does not make what he said inherently right or wrong.

Everyone who sins is a "child of the devil". We all sin.

That is correct, which is why I didn't think what Farmer18th said was any big deal.

The Lord offers us forgiveness, but that forgiveness does not give us the right to condemn our fellow sinners.

There is a difference between "condemnation" and a stern warning. If you ask Farmer18th whether those who are unrepentant homosexuals may be saved, or are always 'children of the devil', I suspect he would give you the right answer. Yes, of course they may be saved, if they go and sin no more.

But the time is long past for us to stop meekly surrendering in the face of extreme evil and call a spade a spade. Those who practice homosexual acts and are not only unrepentant but DEMAND that we Christians accept their acts as licit, valid, and moral, are Children of the Devil. There's no two ways about it. By their fruits will ye know them.

Meanwhile, those individuals who cast aside their same-sex attractions and accept Christ unconditionally, should be fully embraced and accpeted by the Church. You know as well as I do that the excerpt from the Catechism which you lifted says exactly that. It says nothing about sheepishly giving way when the radical homosexual groups demand that we change our culture to accept them and their barbaric acts as 'good'--and using the force of law to compel us to do so. That's really what this is all about when you get down to it.

There is a difference between "condemnation" and a stern warning. If you ask Farmer18th whether those who are unrepentant homosexuals may be saved, or are always 'children of the devil', I suspect he would give you the right answer. Yes, of course they may be saved, if they go and sin no more.

And if they accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. The near universal formula for evangelizing in the Bible is to preach repentence first. Peter's first sermon--and Peter knew something about sin--included, at the outset, an accusation, that the Sanhedrin had crucified Christ. He called them to repent, and then he offered them the Lord's mercy.

There's a street preacher you may have heard about, Ray Comfort. When he first began preaching, he spoke of Jesus's love. Most of the people who heard him responded, if not with outright avoidance, by saying, "Great, someone else loves me." When he began following the Biblical mandate--accusation, repentance, and then mercy--people began accepting the Lord. Until people know how deeply entrenched in sin they are, they don't see a need for a Saviour.

If a homosexual is basically ashamed of his acts, you hold out the wonderful prospect of the Lord's mercy. If he is proud of his acts, you have to warn him, sometimes harshly.

It says nothing about sheepishly giving way when the radical homosexual groups demand that we change our culture to accept them and their barbaric acts as 'good'--and using the force of law to compel us to do so.

And neither am I. I'm just saying that for us as sinners, going around calling people "children of the devil" is idiotic, counterproductive, and uncharitable. I detest homosexuality and have never been shy about expressing that in public, as even a cursory FR search or Google of my writings will show. But we must make it very clear that it is homosexuality we detest -- the act, the political movement, and the "lifestyle" -- and not the homosexual. We can vigorously oppose the homosexualization of our culture without demonizing our fellow human beings.