Posted on 08/06/2003 8:17:24 AM PDT by kattracks
The US Episcopal church's first openly gay bishop predicted that other churches would soon follow his denomination's example in welcoming gays into their leadership.
"I suspect that before too very long, other denominations will also follow and welcome openly gay and lesbian people into leadership positions. That's my prayer," Gene Robinson told ABC television on Wednesday.
A majority of the church's House of Bishops on Tuesday voted 62 to 45 to ratify Robinson's appointment as bishop of New Hampshire, church officials said, ending three days of contentious debate.
Conservatives within church ranks, many of whom have fiercely opposed Robinson's election on the grounds it violates Biblical teachings, were quick to express their disapproval, and a group of 24 bishops threatened to resign if he were elected.
"Well, anytime anyone decides to leave the church, it's a very sad thing. And I certainly have been praying and will be praying every day that such a thing does not happen," Robinson said. "Indeed, I don't think it needs to happen."
"The Episcopal Church in this country, and the Anglican community worldwide, the great gift we bring to the world is we are able to maintain a wide diversity of opinions on various issues while holding our faith in Jesus Christ as central and the thing that binds us together as the body of Christ. So I think there's no reason for us to come apart," Robinson said.
The Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Anglican Church, has more than 2.1 million followers, making it the 10th-largest Protestant church in the United States.
There is an active group of Freepers who are member of American Orthodox parishes. The Orthodox in America are if anything more conservative than the Orthodox in the "old countries", in part because of the large and vocal community of evangelical converts to Orthodoxy. They are also much more conservative than the majority of the Roman Catholics in America. As I mentioned earlier, Orthodox membership in the NCC and the WCC is a legacy of early 20th century attempts at ecumenism that have failed miserably. There is a strong push within the Orthodox jurisdictions to withdraw from these organizations, but there are those who believe the Orthodox should remain in order to bear witness to the Truth. I think withdrawal is only a matter of time, though.
It is not a 'saying', dolt, it is scripture.
Now quickly, before you're banned-- what did Jesus say to the adulteress he rescued from death by stoning?
They're both unnatural and intrinsically evil acts.
Observing the Natural LawIf someone doesn't want to have children...11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
Pope Paul VI
Humanae Vitae
Should Christians believe doctrines because they are true, or because they like them?
...or their life is in danger...
They should abstain or use natural methods of birth control. Regardless, these cases represent a small percentage of those who use artificial birth control.
...if they have any more children, then the practice of birth control is a better alternative than someone that has an abortion
This is a case of the ends justifying the (evil) means.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong....or brings an unwanted child into the world and then abuses that child.
Better not to exist than to be abused? We're all abused in this life. We all have crosses to bear. But our croses will seem as nothing if we get to heaven. How is non- existence better than the Beatific Vision?
Catholics practice birth control all the time and they should not be made to feel guilty by doing so IMO! <
Yes they do, and yes they should. We're obligated to exhort and reprove. Slapping on the back those who do evil is the oppostive of love.
I had three C-Sections and the doctor said the next one could kill me -- If I had been Catholic like my husband, I guess I would have taken the chance or felt guilty. Well I wasn't and my three kids needed a Mom more than another brother or sister! Some things you don't leave in God's hands, when you have a choice. I chose to be a Mom to three kids and not take a chance.
The ends do not justify the means. Your alternatives would be abstinence or natural means of birth control. I know how diffficult this would be. This would require heroic virtue and much suffering. But Jesus doesn't assure us of a pain-free life. "Pick up your cross and follow me."
Condemn me if you want, but that is only one of many reasons that I never became Catholic and my three children were not raised Catholic.
Be honest with yourself. Did you reject the teaching because you don't believe it, or because it would involve sacrifice and suffering?
I was already condemned by a priest for making my choice to have no more children -- pretty arrogant since I wasn't even Catholic.
He should not have condemned you since he could not know whether you understood the reasoning behind the teaching. Nevertheless, the reasoning is based on natural law arguments, and is fully accessible to non-Catholics and even non-Christians.
Finally, consider the prophetic nature of these words written 35 years ago:
Consequences of Artificial Methods17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
It's you.
Or maybe you just don't like the follow-up to the part about not casting stones. I'll bet that's it.
|
There is an important difference between the two statements "I commit homosexual acts. I know they are a sin and I am praying and trying to stop this sin." and "I commit homosexual acts as the way to show Gods love to my partner. There is nothing wrong with my lifestyle."
The former statement admits the supremacy of the Word of God. The later denies it. I have read statements attributable to the new Bishop that are like the later statement. In other words, the new Bishop denies that the Word of God as expressed in the Bible has any meaning to him, if it would make him change his lifestyle. That is heresy. It's cut-and-paste Christianity.
That is the heart of my beef with the Episcopalian decision.
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.
