“He told me, ‘Juan Carlos, that you are gαy does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are,’”
Gee, I always thought that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is one of the four sins that cried out to God for vengeance , but disorder sounds nice.
God will not be mocked. God does not create disorder. Francis is guaranteeing himself a special place in Hell. :heretic:
So, when someone is born with a birth defect, let's say that he/she has both male and female genitalia, is that not a disorder? Where did it come from? Our fallen nature is subject to disorders. In fact, our fallen nature IS a disorder. God did not INTEND for us to struggle with concupiscence or irascibility, but we are born with these anyway. Similarly, while God did not INTEND that human beings be born with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, that disorder could theoretically happen also without any act of the will.No qualms here. God does not make evil but fallen nature does allow for aberration. I would be careful to distinguish amongst physical, psychological and moral/spiritual defects.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruzImprecatory prayers!
Oh boy. The Holy Father needs our prayers
i can guarantee you that 99.9% of these people are not hermaphrodites.
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
"Sins against nature … like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God's law, for our Creator did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which he is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust."
"Your punishments [O God] are for the sins that men commit against themselves because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is self-betrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things that You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion 'to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow' (Rom 1:26)."
So, when someone is born with a birth defect, let's say that he/she has both male and female genitalia, is that not a disorder? Where did it come from? Our fallen nature is subject to disorders.
And don't tell me souls have no masculine (male) or feminine (female) nature.
So, when someone is born with a birth defect, let's say that he/she has both male and female genitalia, is that not a disorder? Where did it come from? Our fallen nature is subject to disorders. In fact, our fallen nature IS a disorder. God did not INTEND for us to struggle with concupiscence or irascibility, but we are born with these anyway. Similarly, while God did not INTEND that human beings be born with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, that disorder could theoretically happen also without any act of the will.Due to our fallen nature, we all have unnatural sɛҳuąƖ urges to some degree, you're right in that. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and the like, however, are the ones that give into them completely. They spend their lives corrupting the national spirit of the nations they inhabit, as well as the individuals within said nations, and deserve no mercy unless they repent. Nearly all of the sɛҳuąƖ depravity everywhere in Western culture was started by the catalyst of indifference towards ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz"Holy Father"... :barf:
Oh boy. The Holy Father needs our prayers
Do we have evidence that Pope Francis actually said this?If they do that, there will be a schism within the Novus Ordo
Does anyone here think this is some form of opening salvo to start the ground work for the celebration of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the Conciliar Church and to eventually allow same-sex weddings in the Novus Ordo? Most big and deviant changes start as whispers to see how the faithful react. Well, Pope Francis has been hinting and also dropping bombs since 2013.
Do we have evidence that Pope Francis actually said this?Well, if he didn't, I'm *sure* he will make a public denial. ::)
That wasn't my point. I was making an analogy between disorders that someone might theoretically be born with. It's possible in our fallen nature to be born with certain disorders, possibly even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. So, for instance, they've noticed that various lower life forms become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ when subjected to certain types of chemicals in their environment. That's all I was saying.
The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962What if the Holy Father were to say to the Downs Syndrome child, "it's ok to have downs syndrome. God still loves you." Or maybe to teh autistic child "its ok, God still loves you."
Let's say that some people have certain genetic things that incline them to go this way, since unfortunately we're starting to see ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity even among animals who have been exposed to various kinds of chemicals and whatnot. So is it possible that some people were born with those inclinations ... due to hormonal imbalances. Yes, it is. But even then, it's a DISORDER that needs to be treated as such. Similarly, some people are born with genetic deformities, birth defects, etc. ... this doesn't mean that they're natural and the traits intended by God.He said it's ok to be gαy. He didn't say it's ok to go out and commit all kinds of abominations. God loves all of us. If He didn't love this person then he would cease to exist. All of us have crosses to carry. In the case of the man born blind the disciples asked if it was his own sin or the sins of his parents that caused this situation. Jesus said that it was in order that the glory of God might be manifest.
So the problem I have with his statement is the fact that he's saying that God loves him this way. God loves him DESPITE his disordered/sinful inclinations, just as you would love someone who had birth defects. But that's where the similarity with birth defects ends ... because if the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly-inclined man acts out on it, then it's a sin that displeases and offends God. So too heterosɛҳuąƖs who sin with the opposite sex displease and offend God as well.
So this man on the chair is a bumbling idiot.
A heterosɛҳuąƖ sinful act is grave , and unrepentant, will still buy you hell, but it at least is not against the natural law.All of us have crosses to carry. Some of them are heavier than others. Some people have to sit in a wheelchair while other people have invisible crosses to carry.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against the natural law and comparing the two is just part of the slippery slope.( I think we are at the bottom of the slope!)
What if the Holy Father were to say to the Downs Syndrome child, "it's ok to have downs syndrome. God still loves you." Or maybe to teh autistic child "its ok, God still loves you."But, the examples you give are of people with birth defects that prevent them from being culpable of sin for the most part. Pope Francis gave great scandal by appearing to condone the sin of sodomy rather than both reassuring the man that God loves him - but also telling him that he must confess his mortal sin and discontinue it.
But, the examples you give are of people with birth defects that prevent them from being culpable of sin for the most part. Pope Francis gave great scandal by appearing to condone the sin of sodomy rather than both reassuring the man that God loves him - but also telling him that he must confess his mortal sin and discontinue it.The same sex attraction is also a defect but of a different order. It can be an invisible defect that you would know nothing about unless that person makes some sort of revelation or in some way acts it out. One should never act out in this sinful way. But then who knows? that person could be more holy in the eyes of God by resisting this temptation to sin in this way than we like to think we are.
What if the Holy Father were to say to the Downs Syndrome child, "it's ok to have downs syndrome. God still loves you." Or maybe to teh autistic child "its ok, God still loves you."On the contrary, these examples of "disabilities" you mention open the person up to becoming a saint! They may never have the capacity for personal sin. The "disability" of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, acted upon , is always a grave sin. Would God create people genetically/hard wired whose only sɛҳuąƖ expression in any capacity is grave sin? You might say that all of these people are called to continence and their self- control would warrant them the same sainthood, but ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from what I can tell is a wanton , polygamous unatural disposition, beyond any normal sɛҳuąƖ urges. That doesn't sound like God would create that, maybe allow it because of the sins of the world.But does God still love them? Of course.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and the like, however, are the ones that give into them completely.
Do we have evidence that Pope Francis actually said this?
He said it's ok to be gαy. He didn't say it's ok to go out and commit all kinds of abominations. God loves all of us. If He didn't love this person then he would cease to exist. All of us have crosses to carry. In the case of the man born blind the disciples asked if it was his own sin or the sins of his parents that caused this situation. Jesus said that it was in order that the glory of God might be manifest.
Does God give birth defects to people that would almost always cause them to commit mortal sin and go to Hell?
Would God create people genetically/hard wired whose only sɛҳuąƖ expression in any capacity is grave sin?
Anyone who argues that God creates people gαy( or even hints at it) is out of their mind.
This has become Francis' modus operandi. He leaks stuff that he wants to get out through third parties, but he keeps a bit of distance for the purposes of plausible deniability. No one can prove that he actually said this. In public, he'll have no comment and will neither confirm nor deny that he said it. That's because he wants people to know that he said it without his enemies being able to attack him for it due to lack of proof.
Have you heard about God's permissive will?Yes, and that has nothing to do with what I said. God could permit something bad to happen to a child, but there is ZERO proof that people are born homo. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a disorder, and I think we can be fairly certain that this poor guy was turned gαy by abuse. God does not create people with unnatural desires.
This has become Francis' modus operandi. He leaks stuff that he wants to get out through third parties, but he keeps a bit of distance for the purposes of plausible deniability. No one can prove that he actually said this. In public, he'll have no comment and will neither confirm nor deny that he said it. That's because he wants people to know that he said it without his enemies being able to attack him for it due to lack of proof.He does this so people like poche can justify their defense of his indefensible behavior. Jimmy Akin does the same thing. It is designed to neutralize opposition from the right.
He does this so people like poche can justify their defense of his indefensible behavior. Jimmy Akin does the same thing. It is designed to neutralize opposition from the right.
Well, if he didn't, I'm *sure* he will make a public denial. ::)
Yep, this is proof he knows what he is doing and his comments are much more than a case of silly spontaneity.
What if the Holy Father were to say to the Downs Syndrome child, "it's ok to have downs syndrome. God still loves you." Or maybe to teh autistic child "its ok, God still loves you."Down's Syndrome is a birth defect, acting on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ impulses is a sin that cries out to Heaven.
This has become Francis' modus operandi. He leaks stuff that he wants to get out through third parties, but he keeps a bit of distance for the purposes of plausible deniability. No one can prove that he actually said this. In public, he'll have no comment and will neither confirm nor deny that he said it. That's because he wants people to know that he said it without his enemies being able to attack him for it due to lack of proof.Setting aside that we are discussing actions of a pope, what kind of category of sin would this be if someone acted this way on a regular basis by spreading gossip through third parties and then not being straightforward and honest with those who trust and follow this person?
The exorcists say ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a form of demon possession. ( Asmodeus?)
They [the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs] not only fail from resisting the weakness [of fallen human nature] .... but they do even worse when they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords.
For Me this sin against nature is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear their iniquity ....
It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed. For while certainly it is the devil that first strikes the sinner with the poisoned arrow of concupiscence, nonetheless when a man actually carries out such a sinful act, the devil goes away.
Setting aside that we are discussing actions of a pope, what kind of category of sin would this be if someone acted this way on a regular basis by spreading gossip through third parties and then not being straightforward and honest with those who trust and follow this person?
Setting aside that we are discussing actions of a pope, what kind of category of sin would this be if someone acted this way on a regular basis by spreading gossip through third parties and then not being straightforward and honest with those who trust and follow this person?The same kind of sin that one would commit if he were to knowingly and purposely instruct students under his care to swim in a raging river headed for a bottomless precipice full of lava?
I read an article in which it seems he said he does not really think before speaking. He says that people come to him with many theological questions that he does not have an answer for, so he says whatever it comes to mind.I agree. Some folks think he is stupid. I do not.
He literally makes it up as he goes along.
I personally don't think this is true. I think he knows what he is doing.
I agree. Some folks think he is stupid. I do not.
He's not the brightest bulb. But in this case, these actions are most likely well planned and deliberate.Yes. Nothing in politics happens by chance.
A heterosɛҳuąƖ sinful act is grave , and unrepentant, will still buy you hell, but it at least is not against the natural law.A heterosɛҳuąƖ sinful act is against the natural law.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against the natural law and comparing the two is just part of the slippery slope.( I think we are at the bottom of the slope!)
Ontologically, the hermaphrodite still has either an exclusive masculine (male) or feminine (female) soul, despite the physical birth defect. The soul created by God has no ambiguity in its nature & identity. Hermaphroditism is no different than being born with no limbs or any other grotesque disfiguration, but it's no reflection of the soul of the person.St. Michael does not have a "masculine soul." In fact, angels do not "have" souls at all. They are pure spirits (neither male nor female) each distinct in species. They do not have a substantial soul, they are intellectual immaterial substances.
The parents & priest of the hermaphrodite must pray, fast and give alms for the child in his formative years so the child, parents & priest may finally discern the actual sex of the person according to his soul, and proceed to corrective physical surgery. This is not the same as the mortal sin of the grotesque perversion of "transitioning".
And don't tell me souls have no masculine (male) or feminine (female) nature. St. Michael the Archangel is named "Michael" because of his masculine (male) soul, despite not having a physical body.
A heterosɛҳuąƖ sinful act is against the natural law.Please expound on this. Thanks
Please expound on this. Thanks
I think I get it- if heterosɛҳuąƖs commit acts of sodomy it is against the natural law. Natural heterosɛҳuąƖ relations however illicit/sinful may remain in the natural law. Which I think was my point.
I think I get it- if heterosɛҳuąƖs commit acts of sodomy it is against the natural law. Natural heterosɛҳuąƖ relations however illicit/sinful may remain in the natural law. Which I think was my point.
A sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), in human acts (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm), is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) if one, by the dictate of reason (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm), makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm). Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) of one individual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm) is a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm), so, too, is the preservation of the nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) of the human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) species (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) a very great good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm). And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm), so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). Hence Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sɛҳuąƖ intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) procreation.
Premarital or extramarital sex are sins that do not, in themselves, violate natural law.
Here is how St. Thomas categorized sɛҳuąƖ sins http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm) :
Marriage per say rises above the realm of natural law, but one might argue that it's against natural law to be promiscuous, since a stable family is required to raise children properly.
Again, "against natural law" (contra legem naturalem) is different from "against nature" (contra naturam). There's a very specific subset of things that are contra naturam ... things like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and masturbation, for instance.
Now this same matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the "vice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm) against nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm)," which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is "simple fornication," which is the union of an unmarried man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) with an unmarried woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm). Secondly, the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm); and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) not being paid to her; and thus there is "incest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07717a.htm)," which consists in the misuse of a woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) who is related by consanguinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm) or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) under whose authority the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is "adultery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm)," if under the authority of her father, it is "seduction," in the absence of violence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15446a.htm), and "rape" if violence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15446a.htm) be employed.Note that he includes in vice against nature "every venereal act from which generation cannot follow." He gets more specific about "the unnatural vice" later:
He does go on to say that the unnatural vice is the worst form of lust, but this does not seem limited to sodomy, but includes sins that heterosɛҳuąƖs commit.
...wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of lust (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm). This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) vices (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm); secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm): and this is called "the unnatural vice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm)." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of "uncleanness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04010c.htm)" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm), and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) states (Romans 1:27 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom001.htm#verse27)): and this is called the "vice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm) of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.
Please expound on this. ThanksI am not intending to quibble over what is contrary to "natural law" vs "sins against nature." I am just wanting to point out that a Thomistic understanding of natural law does include things like heterosɛҳuąƖ sins of the flesh etc. In a follow up post you said "Natural heterosɛҳuąƖ relations however illicit/sinful may remain in the natural law." If I understand you correctly, i.e. that fornication for instance, although illicit is still in accord with natural law, then this would not be correct. Another poster said that, premarital or extramarital sex are sins that do not, in themselves, violate natural law." This is incorrect and is not a mere quibble but really gets to the heart of natural law.
Another poster said that, premarital or extramarital sex are sins that do not, in themselves, violate natural law." This is incorrect and is not a mere quibble but really gets to the heart of natural law.That was me. Thanks for the correction.
Well, I do think he's stupid. He kept calling Traditionalists Pelagians when he obviously meant Jansenists. If any are Pelagians, it's the modernists. He's not the brightest bulb. But in this case, these actions are most likely well planned and deliberate.I don't think that means he is "stupid". Ignorant of Catholic history? Maybe. But stupid? No.
Jesus says " go and sin no more" because He loves His people.Pope Francis didn't say that its ok to commit sin. He said that it is ok to be gαy. Of course with this situation then what is required is a life of chastity.
Only the devil makes people into sodomites and sinners.
It's not "ok to be gαy". God loves the sinner but hates the sin.
Thanks to Obama and Pope Francis for promoting gαy agenda and worship of false gods.
On the contrary, these examples of "disabilities" you mention open the person up to becoming a saint! They may never have the capacity for personal sin. The "disability" of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, acted upon , is always a grave sin. Would God create people genetically/hard wired whose only sɛҳuąƖ expression in any capacity is grave sin? You might say that all of these people are called to continence and their self- control would warrant them the same sainthood, but ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from what I can tell is a wanton , polygamous unatural disposition, beyond any normal sɛҳuąƖ urges. That doesn't sound like God would create that, maybe allow it because of the sins of the world.But does God still love them? Of course.Living a life of chastity can also open up someone to become a saint.
The exorcists say ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a form of demon possession. ( Asmodeus?)
He didn't say it's OK to commit the sin of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but he didn't say that it isn't OK either. That's the problem with Bergoglio; he likes to stir the pope and causes chaos. He needs to make that clear when saying things like this to avoid scandal ... except that Bergoglio revels in causing scandal. There's something very sick and twisted and diabolical about that.NO, the young person who quoted him didn't say that.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with what I said. God could permit something bad to happen to a child, but there is ZERO proof that people are born homo. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a disorder, and I think we can be fairly certain that this poor guy was turned gαy by abuse. God does not create people with unnatural desires.At a certain point it doesn't matter whether some one is born with a proclivity or if they were induced to it somehow. God loves the person with a special love. It is up to us to respond to that love by living the holiness (that means chastity according to our state in life) that He calls us to.
He does this so people like poche can justify their defense of his indefensible behavior. Jimmy Akin does the same thing. It is designed to neutralize opposition from the right.There should be no objection on a Catholic forum for someone to live a life of chastity.
Precisely. Bergoglio is as clever as a serpent. So while his intended message gets out to the left (there is no hell, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK, remarriage is OK, etc.) ... the right defends him due to lack of proof.The person who accused the Pope of saying that there is no Hell later on admitted that he lied and that the Pope never said any such thing.
Exactly. If someone were falsely telling the world I said that hell doesn't exist, I would come out with a public denial IMMEDIATELY.The person who made that comment later on publicly admitted to having lied about that comment.
Down's Syndrome is a birth defect, acting on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ impulses is a sin that cries out to Heaven.Having a same sex attraction is a defect.
Do you understand the difference?
When modernists and others talk about accepting ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, they are talking about embracing the act of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and not the disordered impulse.
Disordered impulses are to be struggled against all your life with prayer, fasting and, if you are in a state of grace, the Sacraments. Disordered impulses, if shrugged off, will lead to mortal sin.
Poche, what does mortal sin lead to?
There should be no objection on a Catholic forum for someone to live a life of chastity.Based on your posts here you obviously think it is ok to be gαy as long as you are chaste. It’s not ok to be gαy. If someone is chaste and doesn’t lust after others, they are not gαy. They are normal. In order for a man to be gαy he has to at the very least entertain unnatural lustful thoughts towards another man or an image of a man. That is not chaste. By definition a gαy man is not chaste. Matthew should ban you for promoting ideas that are not compatible with the Catholic faith. You are a passive aggressive destroyer of the faith. Please go away and stop your foolishness.
Having a same sex attraction is a defect.Attraction is not a defect. Lustful thoughts are not a defect in the sense of something inherent in one’s dna. Entertaining lustful thoughts is a sin. Entertaining lustful thoughts towards another man is an unnatural sin. You are guilty of abandoning Catholic thought in favor of modernist thought. Please go away before you drag good Catholics down to hell with you.
Based on your posts here you obviously think it is ok to be gαy as long as you are chaste. It’s not ok to be gαy. If someone is chaste and doesn’t lust after others, they are not gαy. They are normal. In order for a man to be gαy he has to at the very least entertain unnatural lustful thoughts towards another man or an image of a man. That is not chaste. By definition a gαy man is not chaste. Matthew should ban you for promoting ideas that are not compatible with the Catholic faith. You are a passive aggressive destroyer of the faith. Please go away and stop your foolishness.An important part of chastity is to not lust after others.
Based on your posts here you obviously think it is ok to be gαy as long as you are chaste. It’s not ok to be gαy. If someone is chaste and doesn’t lust after others, they are not gαy. They are normal. In order for a man to be gαy he has to at the very least entertain unnatural lustful thoughts towards another man or an image of a man. That is not chaste. By definition a gαy man is not chaste. Matthew should ban you for promoting ideas that are not compatible with the Catholic faith. You are a passive aggressive destroyer of the faith. Please go away and stop your foolishness.Would you hold this statement to be true?: "In order for a man to be heterosɛҳuąƖ he has to, at the very least, entertain lustful (though natural) thoughts towards another woman or an image of a woman."
Would you hold this statement to be true?: "In order for a man to be heterosɛҳuąƖ he has to, at the very least, entertain lustful (though natural) thoughts towards another woman or an image of a woman."HeterosɛҳuąƖ is a modernist category which I don’t accept. Married men can partake of the marital act without sin. Unmarried men cannot entertain lustful thoughts without sin.
St. Michael does not have a "masculine soul." In fact, angels do not "have" souls at all. They are pure spirits (neither male nor female) each distinct in species. They do not have a substantial soul, they are intellectual immaterial substances.
I mean is it ok to be bestial? Is it ok to be incestuous? Of course not, you jackass!
“In fact, this vice cannot in any way be compared to any others, because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice causes the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, and expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in the heart of man, introducing in His stead the Devil who is the instigator of lust.
"It steers the soul into error, banishes all truth from the deceived soul, sets traps for those who fall into it, and then caps the well to prevent those who fall in from getting out. It opens the gates of Hell and closes the doors of Heaven to them, turns a former citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the infernal Babylon, transforming him from a heavenly star into a straw for the eternal fire. It wrenches a member from the Church and plunges him into the voracious flames of the fiery Gehenna.
“This vice strives to tear down the walls of the heavenly motherland and rebuild those of the ruined Sodom. Indeed, it violates temperance, kills purity, stifles chastity, and cuts the head of virginity – which is irrecoverable – with the sword of a most infamous union. It infects everything, stains everything, pollutes everything; leaving nothing pure, nothing but filth, nothing clean. ‘All things are clean to the clean,’ as the Apostle says, ‘but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Tit 1:15).
“This vice expels one from the choir of the ecclesiastical host and forces one to join the ranks of the possessed and those who work in league with the Devil. It separates the soul from God and links it with the devils. This most pestiferous Sodomite queen makes those who obey her tyrannical laws repugnant to men and hateful to God, forcing them into a nefarious war against God and obliging them to enlist in the ranks of the perverse spirit.
"It [this sin] separates him from the company of angels and deprives the soul of its nobility, imposing on the unfortunate soul the yoke of its own domination. It tears its henchmen from the arms of virtues and leaves them exposed as prey to the arrows of all the vices. It leaves one to be humiliated in the Church, condemned at court, defiled in secret, and dishonored in public. It gnaws at the person’s conscience like a worm and burns his flesh like fire …
“The miserable flesh burns with the fire of lust, the cold intelligence trembles under the rancor of misgivings, and the unfortunate man’s heart is overwhelmed by hellish chaos, subjecting him to countless pains of conscience as he is tortured in punishment.
"Yes, as soon as this most venomous serpent plunges its fangs into the unfortunate soul, it is immediately deprived of its senses and memory, the edge of the intelligence is dulled, he forgets God and even himself."
The person who made that comment later on publicly admitted to having lied about that comment.Please share link. I don't recall any such thing.
We do not need to act upon our thoughts in order to fall into mortal sin. Sin can be of thought as well. If we have filthy minds, that is a sign we are not the children of God; but of the Devil. True chastity requires us to have a clean and pure mind. It is not sufficient to just "not act upon the sinful thoughts".
I think angels are of male nature. There must be a reason why they have always taken a male form in the Bible.
Wouldn't a man behaving in an overly effeminate way be committing a mortal sin by being an accessory to another's sin, by bad counsel, and implicit consent, provocation? That's even if they do not engage in sodomy? They would be bad also be example.
Well, there are degrees of effeminacy. Not all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are overtly effeminate. And the degree of sin would presumably be proportional to the degree of effeminacy. I'm not sure "bad example" applies, because I don't really know of any straight men that would want to follow the example of an effeminate man ... they're usually repulsed by it.Bad example to other effeminate men, children, and men on the fence.
Please share link. I don't recall any such thing.Share your source with us, Poche. If what you say is correct, this would indeed be welcome news.
Share your source with us, Poche. If what you say is correct, this would indeed be welcome news.I think poche is mistaken. The "Vatican" denied that Francis ever said this, but Eugene Scalfari never came out and said he lied. I have tried to find such an admission via google and there is nothing.
Bad example to other effeminate men, children, and men on the fence.
Wouldn't a man behaving in an overly effeminate way be committing a mortal sin by being an accessory to another's sin, by bad counsel, and implicit consent and provocation? That's even if they do not engage in sodomy? They would be bad example.That would depend on the intent.
(P.s. - Bergolio is guilty of bad counsel, consent, praise and flattetry, concealment, silence, and implicit defense of ill done)
Nine Ways of being accessory to another's sin
1. by counsel
2. by command
3. by consent
4. by provocation
5. by praise or flattery
6. by concealment
7. by partaking
8. by silence
9. by the defense of the ill done
Well, here is a novus ordo sect curveball.I already posted this to this thread yesterday.
This will make a lot of novus ordo "trads" proud of their novus ordo Pope.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-tells-italian-bishops-to-not-let-gαys-enter-the-seminary (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-tells-italian-bishops-to-not-let-gαys-enter-the-seminary)
There are some effeminate boys out there who do not necessarily have sodomite tendencies. However, they must be corrected:
Should Boys with Feminine Tendencies Be Corrected? (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/G009_Boys.html)
Well, here is a novus ordo sect curveball.
This will make a lot of novus ordo "trads" proud of their novus ordo Pope.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-tells-italian-bishops-to-not-let-gαys-enter-the-seminary (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-tells-italian-bishops-to-not-let-gαys-enter-the-seminary)
Please share link. I don't recall any such thing.Scalfari’s fifth meeting with Pope Francis, it is not the first time he has misrepresented the Pope’s words following a private audience.
Scalfari’s fifth meeting with Pope Francis, it is not the first time he has misrepresented the Pope’s words following a private audience.So...
In November 2013, following intense controversy over quotes the journalist had attributed to Francis, Scalfari admitted that at least some of the words he had published a month prior “were not shared by the Pope himself.” (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/popes-words-in-interview-may-not-have-been-his-own-scalfari-says)
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-dont-trust-report-that-pope-francis-denied-reality-of-hell-53450
So...If this journalist admits that what he said was not what Pope Francis actually said tehn why believe anything else that he says? This would not be the first time that a journalist lied about what somebody else said. something untrue about what somebody said. You only believe the worse because you have bad will against Pope Francis.
(1) this has nothing to do with what Francis said about the topic at hand (God making people gαy).
(2) in 2013, Scalfari admits that "some of the words" were not what Francis said regarding Hell. All that means is that they were not exact quotes. In the mean time, Francis never denied Scalfari's report regarding his beliefs about Hell.
(3) Considering Scalfari supposedly "misrepresents" Francis, Francis goes back to him over and over again. Perhaps he's not so far off base after all, huh?
If this journalist admits that what he said was not what Pope Francis actually said tehn why believe anything else that he says? This would not be the first time that a journalist lied about what somebody else said. something untrue about what somebody said. You only believe the worse because you have bad will against Pope Francis.So I'll ask you again, why does your "Pope" Francis continue to do interviews with this supposed "liar"?
Scalfari’s fifth meeting with Pope Francis, it is not the first time he has misrepresented the Pope’s words following a private audience.
In November 2013, following intense controversy over quotes the journalist had attributed to Francis, Scalfari admitted that at least some of the words he had published a month prior “were not shared by the Pope himself.” (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/popes-words-in-interview-may-not-have-been-his-own-scalfari-says)
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-dont-trust-report-that-pope-francis-denied-reality-of-hell-53450
Uhm, this particular quote does not come from Scalfari ... but from Juan Carlos Cruz, a sex abuse victim. There's no reason to doubt his credibility.I don't think that for Pope Francis to tell someone that God loves them is so evil. Of course the next step is for that person to respond to the special love that God has for them by taking up the cross and following Him.
Nice try, poche.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/europe/pope-francis-gαy-comments-intl/index.html
A heterosɛҳuąƖ sinful act is grave , and unrepentant, will still buy you hell, but it at least is not against the natural law.Marriage is also a part of natural law, hence why the Church recognises "natural marriages". Ergo fornication is against natural law.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against the natural law and comparing the two is just part of the slippery slope.( I think we are at the bottom of the slope!)
Ontologically, the hermaphrodite still has either an exclusive masculine (male) or feminine (female) soul, despite the physical birth defect. The soul created by God has no ambiguity in its nature & identity. Hermaphroditism is no different than being born with no limbs or any other grotesque disfiguration, but it's no reflection of the soul of the person.And it could be argued the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ must do the same. Perhaps ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity could be cured if the liberal agenda didn't shut down any attempts at it. Based on the facts that we see ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in animals and the fact ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been found to exhibit certain brain functions more akin to the opposite sex, I'd reckon it's a mental disorder rather than purely a spiritual one(although it may have such causes in humans - yet surely not animals, and of course dire spiritual consequences should they act on the urges). An insanely disproportionate number of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs suffered sɛҳuąƖ abuse as children, suggesting it's some sort of post-traumatic disorder. So it should be treated like a mental disorder rather than just accepted as an orientation(what nonsense!). And while it may not have such a simple cure as surgery, I'm sure through therapy and prayer it could be cured if only the research of cures weren't actively prevented in modern society.
The parents & priest of the hermaphrodite must pray, fast and give alms for the child in his formative years so the child, parents & priest may finally discern the actual sex of the person according to his soul, and proceed to corrective physical surgery. This is not the same as the mortal sin of the grotesque perversion of "transitioning".
And don't tell me souls have no masculine (male) or feminine (female) nature. St. Michael the Archangel is named "Michael" because of his masculine (male) soul, despite not having a physical body.
I don't think that for Pope Francis to tell someone that God loves them is so evil.It is very evil, in fact blasphemy, to tell someone that God loves their evil behavior and/or created that person for the purpose of doing the evil that they are doing.
It is very evil, in fact blasphemy, to tell someone that God loves their evil behavior and/or created that person for the purpose of doing the evil that they are doing.There is a huge difference in saying "God loves you." and "God loves your evil behavior."
Sodomy is one of The Four Sins.
There is a huge difference in saying "God loves you." and "God loves your evil behavior."How else do you interpret "God loves you like this?"
And it could be argued the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ must do the same.
Yes, prayer, fasting and giving alms are definitely to be recommended
Perhaps ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity could be cured if the liberal agenda didn't shut down any attempts at it.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is "cured" irrespective of any liberal agenda, when ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ persons devote their lives to Christ, through the practice of the sacraments and other aids offered by the Church, just as for any other sin, though ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ feelings do take great effort, determination and persistence to overcome.
Based on the facts that we see ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in animals and the fact ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been found to exhibit certain brain functions more akin to the opposite sex, I'd reckon it's a mental disorder rather than purely a spiritual one (although it may have such causes in humans - yet surely not animals, and of course dire spiritual consequences should they act on the urges).
Repeating the same actions over and over causes the "wiring" in the brain to change. It's what we laymen call habits. Habits can be good and bad. We want to keep our good habits (virtues), but as we all know, bad habits (sins) are rooted deeply in us.
An insanely disproportionate number of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs suffered sɛҳuąƖ abuse as children, suggesting it's some sort of post-traumatic disorder. So it should be treated like a mental disorder rather than just accepted as an orientation(what nonsense!). And while it may not have such a simple cure as surgery, I'm sure through therapy and prayer it could be cured if only the research of cures weren't actively prevented in modern society.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity was classified as a mental disorder until 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove it from their conditions for treatment.
For the spiritual approach see https://couragerc.org/
For the therapeutic approach see The National Association for Research & Therapy of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity (NARTH), which by my brief attempt to find their website brought up many attacks against them, which could be a good reason to investigate what they have to offer. The founder was Joseph Nicolosi: https://www.josephnicolosi.com/
How else do you interpret "God loves you like this?"It means that even though this person has certain type of temptations against the virtue of chastity God still loves this person with such a special love that He gave His only son that he might join Him in paradise.
"Like this" means as a sodomite.
It means that even though this person has certain type of temptations against the virtue of chastity God still loves this person with such a special love that He gave His only son that he might join Him in paradise.No. it means that PF prefers ambiguity to clarity, because he prefers to imply that people don't need to change. But the facts are that natural law actually overrides everything. Just as the Israelites knew what personal evil was long before the Ten Commandments were issued, and were culpable for that evil, so it goes with modern man. Sodomizers may be loved by God, but they will damn themselves if they don't STOP being "like this."
https://www.catholic.org/saints/fun_facts_arch.php?saint=10
No. it means that PF prefers ambiguity to clarity, because he prefers to imply that people don't need to change. But the facts are that natural law actually overrides everything. Just as the Israelites knew what personal evil was long before the Ten Commandments were issued, and were culpable for that evil, so it goes with modern man. Sodomizers may be loved by God, but they will damn themselves if they don't STOP being "like this."IF somebody is trying to live in the grace of God and is sincere then it is not who he is but what he does that will send him to Hell.
And it is evil, evil, evil, to pretend otherwise.
It is very evil, in fact blasphemy, to tell someone that God loves their evil behavior and/or created that person for the purpose of doing the evil that they are doing..
Sodomy is one of The Four Sins.
.Every sin has its victims. Many times when we look at the victims of murder, theft, and other things like that we can easily see who the victim is. In the case of sins against purity it is sometimes harder to see sho the victims are in the case of "victimless sin." That doesn't mean that there are no bad effects. For example all the children who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah on the day it rained fire. How about all of the hemophiliacs who contracted aids when their blood was contaminated by the effects of a life of impurity. How about the wife who contracts aids or some other disease because her husband was unfaithful to her. How about the children and young people whose innocence is being taken away because they are corrupted by an immoral person who wants to take advantage of their ignorance.
The sin of Sodom is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.
.
It is entirely lost on the MSM, popular culture, non-Catholics, etc., what this means.
.
What do these four sins have in common? They all cry to heaven for vengeance.
Why do they do that? The suffering of innocent victims due to these sins is a grave injustice against the children of God.
But who are these victims?
The victims of willful murder of the innocent are the innocent murder victims and by extension, their families.
The victims of denying a laborer his just wages are the laborer himself and by extension, his family who also suffers.
The victims of oppression of the poor are the poor themselves and by extension, all of society that suffers the injustice.
.
But who, pray tell, is the victim of Sodomy? Isn't it a victimless "crime" under consent, and therefore no crime at all?
.
Who has the answer for this dilemma?