Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Illusionary Illusory, Misquoter

This fellow, an attorney whose practice is restricted to blogging, has a bit of trouble with the whole truth.

Here's the text of an interview explaining why there will be no GayLesBiTrans services at a parish in the Archdiocese of St Paul:

because it was a LGBT pride prayer service, and that is really inimical to the teachings of the Catholic church

Here's the attorney's description of the above:

It's "not possible" to mention lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered humans as the object of prayers on church property, sez the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis

He has a lot of fun with this sort of stuff. Fair warning, folks.

25 comments:

Amy said...

I'm starting to put less and less stock in what non-Catholics, atheists, and CINOs say and write about the Church because they clearly know not of which they speak.

As in the other post, the Church's teaching on sexuality is pretty clear: only sex within a marriage (between a man and a woman and open to the creation of new life) is morally licit; all other sex is fornication and - therefore - sin.

It's as silly to have a "prayer service" of this nature as it would be to have a prayer service celebrating co-habitating non-married couples or heterosexuals.

grumps said...

I'm curious, Amy. Does that apply to those married outside the auspices of the Catholic Church?

Because my church doesn't ascribe to the same parameters for procreativity is my marriage somehow invalid in the eyes of yours?

It's difficult to be sympathetic to your complaint of being misunderstood when your church has had something over 200 decades to get the message out.

Dad29 said...

Grumpy, Amy was pretty clear. She was referring to the Catholic church, not yours, nor the Mormons, nor the Anabaptists, nor the Mohammedans.

As to procreation, Grumpy, the RC's just happen to preach what comports, EXACTLY, with natural law.

Not a coincidence, either.

Other Side said...

What part of natural law that said marriage between the races was somehow a sin, too?

As in the other post, the Church's teaching on sexuality is pretty clear: only sex within a marriage (between a man and a woman and open to the creation of new life) is morally licit; all other sex is fornication and - therefore - sin.

Ah yes, the Catholic Church ... the moral arbiters of the millenium. Burn the heathens at the stake and if the innocents in Russia are killed by blitzkrieg, oh well, because it's godless communism that's being crushed.

Please ... .

Oh, I was raised Catholic. I just chose not to believe the lies and set myself up as morally superior to others, which the RC's have been remarkably good at for centuries.

Dad29 said...

Yah--so tell me, OS, in what part of the Canon Law do you find miscegenation proscribed?

I'll ignore the rest of your non-sequiturs.

Amy said...

What part of natural law that said marriage between the races was somehow a sin, too?

Out of what orifice did you pull that, OS?

There is nothing in Canon Law forbidding interracial marriage. Or, if their is, I guess the couple (black woman, white man) who had their son baptized missed the memo. As did our priest and the rest of the parishioners.

Oh, I was raised Catholic. I just chose not to believe the lies and set myself up as morally superior to others, which the RC's have been remarkably good at for centuries.

Yeah, there's absolutely no sense of moral superiority there. It's a shame you were poorly catechized, but if you - or anyone else - wants to debate the Truth of Catholicism, do the honest think and freakin' pick up the Catechism and read it before you pull things from where the sun don't shine and spread lies.

Grumps - I was talking about the Catholic Church and its teaching on marriage and sexuality. You know that, so don't pretend otherwise.

Amy said...

That should read "do the honest THING"...

capper said...

Funny how the Catholic Church says that they're the only ones to follow "natural law", when they're the ones that think they know the definition.

I guess God doesn't follow natural law either, when one looks at ALL the facts.

Amy said...

I guess God doesn't follow natural law either, when one looks at ALL the facts.

I'd love to hear how you've worked that one out...

Quite frankly, it's rather hilarious that you - along with OS and Grumps - none of whom understand Catholic Church teaching have nerve to tell us it's wrong.

I'll never understand how you think it's so noble to take the erroneous positions you do, yet an affront to all mankind for Catholics to say "Fine, you don't believe that - but we do."

illusory tenant said...

He has a lot of fun with this sort of stuff.

This is certainly true, but what in the world is your point?

I specifically acknowledged that the Archdiocese's spokesperson declared prayers involving the LGBT descriptors "not possible" due to their being "inimical" to Church teaching.

But feel free to defend that ridiculous "teaching," preferably on the authority of Jesus.

By the way, has the Church removed the complete works of David Hume from its list of banned books yet?

illusory tenant said...

Oh, and how about the entire Masses for dogs dressed as clowns. Inimical or imical?

Amy said...

I specifically acknowledged that the Archdiocese's spokesperson declared prayers involving the LGBT descriptors "not possible" due to their being "inimical" to Church teaching.

So? What's *your* point?

But feel free to defend that ridiculous "teaching," preferably on the authority of Jesus.

Your ignorance and immaturity shines through here.

Clearly it's futile to explain Catholic teaching to you when your argument can't get beyond "Jesus didn't say it, therefore it must not be a sin". Forget that St. Paul, who knew the teachings of Christ (even if every word Christ ever uttered was *not* included in the Bible) made clear His teachings on sin and sexuality. The Bible never quotes Jesus as ordering a big steak dinner, either, so I must have sinned last night too with the T-Bones we had.

When you stop crossing your arms and stomping your feet about Catholic teaching, then perhaps we'll have a mature discussion on the issue. In the meantime, the Catechism is available - free and online - for some independent study. It might help.

Amy said...

Oh, and how about the entire Masses for dogs dressed as clowns. Inimical or imical?

My money would be on any parish that holds those Masses doesn't understand the teaching of the Church on the sacredness of liturgy. Or much else.

In other words, they'd be parishes right up your alley.

illusory tenant said...

So? What's *your* point?

Did you even read Dad's OP? He's accusing me of misquoting. Did you even read the Chicago Tribune item either?

Clearly it's futile to explain Catholic teaching to you ...

lol

Your argument can't get beyond "Jesus didn't say it, therefore it must not be a sin".

Where did I say that? I never said anything about "sin."

The Archdiocese said using the LGBT desriptor is "not possible on Church property," yet Jesus is reported to have said, "With God all things are possible."

Where might God be, exactly, if not on Church property?

illusory tenant said...

Any parish that holds those Masses [for dogs dressed as clowns] doesn't understand the teaching of the Church on the sacredness of liturgy. Or much else.

Because you say so? You're right, it is futile to try and explain your subjective interpretations of allegedly objective, divinely-guided Church doctrine.

Amy said...

Where did I say that? I never said anything about "sin."

Let me repeat this, using simple language you'll understand.

The Church teaches homosexual behavior is a sin, and incompatible with natural law. It does not teach having same sex attraction, SSA or "being gay", is a sin.

The Church calls all persons who cannot – for whatever reason – form a sacramental marriage to live chastely. Since those with SSA often cannot, they – just like heterosexuals who are not married – are called to live chastely.

A prayer service, which was tied into a gay pride event, is inimical to Church teaching because the event itself contradicts Church teaching because it encourages, celebrates, and glorifies behavior which is sinful.

You’re comment:

But feel free to defend that ridiculous "teaching," preferably on the authority of Jesus.

Indicates you are looking for reference to where Jesus specifically referred to homosexual behavior being a sin. Since He didn’t, at least not quoted verbatim in the Bible, it’s often a favorite argument of those ignorant to Church teaching to say “Jesus didn’t say homosexual behavior is a sin, therefore it is not a sin.”

Under no circumstance can the Church celebrate such sin. If we *were* to have a prayer service for LGBT persons, you – and the rest of the critics here – would have a fit because the prayer would revolve around the call to chastity I previously mentioned. If it happened at all. We don’t hold prayer services celebrating the “gift” of co-habitating heterosexual couples, or promiscuous single persons – why do we have to hold prayer services for LGBT persons?

lol

Laugh if you will, but your circular arguments indicate you’re incapable of understanding what’s perfectly clear in Church teaching.

The Archdiocese said using the LGBT desriptor is "not possible on Church property," yet Jesus is reported to have said, "With God all things are possible."

And He did. But not sin – which brings us back to the article. Dad29 quoted the article as saying:

because it was a LGBT pride prayer service, and that is really inimical to the teachings of the Catholic church

A clear indication the prayer service was in contradiction to the Church teaching regarding chastity.

And – as I said above – had the prayer service called for all LGBT persons (and all non-married persons) to live chastely, you’d be having a fit, too.

God is on Church property, most certainly. But God does not tolerate sin and sin weakens (or breaks) the relationship with God

Jesus also told the prostitute he saved from stoning to “sin no more”, ya know.

Amy said...

Because you say so?

No, because the Church says so.

Unlike you, I've read up on the liturgy, the Catechism, Scripture, and Tradition.

Until you do the same, why don't you spend your time elsewhere? It's pretty telling that you keep harping on this subject when you know nothing about Catholicism.

Dad29 said...

IT, read the text.

LBGT "pride" prayers are not possible. That's a far sight from praying FOR those who are afflicted with these disorders.

Amy's right--'celebrating' disorders is not Catholic.

As to the rest of your drivel...

Amy's right again. When you're willing and able to engage in adult-level discourse, feel free.

illusory tenant said...

"That descriptor (LGBT) was not possible on church property," archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said.

Emphases added.

Better yet, learn to read before flinging your baseless accusations.

Dad29 said...

Facts AND circumstances, IT:

"The reason is quite simply because it was a LGBT pride prayer service, and that is really inimical to the teachings of the Catholic church."

Amy said...

IT:

You're the one being dishonest. You are pulling out one part of the quote while ignoring McGrath's follow-up comments.

Super Id said...

IT,

You can't win by arguing that scripture is unreliable, or inconsistent because Catholicism relies almost entirely on tradition.

In fact, Catholic's argue against sola scripture on the basis that the Bible is unreliable. Indeed, the Catholics are correct.

The Bible has been changed through copying and additions and revisions made by scribes. For example, the "he who is without sin story" in Mark is not contained in the earliest versions, the Greek versions of Mark. Yet it appears in the popular King James bible. Obviously, somebody made an addition to Mark's work.

But like you, I cannot see how Catholics can cling to beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception. In fact, Mary did not officially become a virgin in Catholicism until 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the belief infallible.

But on what evidence? Who was present during the immaculate conception? an Angel and Mary, Neither of them have a gospel.

IT, while Catholics will point out every flaw in your argument, they won't even question whether events such as the virgin birth are plausible.

Amy said...

You can't win by arguing that scripture is unreliable, or inconsistent because Catholicism relies almost entirely on tradition.


Oh, brother.

Yeah - we think it's so unreliable we have three readings (on a three-year cycle) each Sunday, plus daily readings. Never mind the little fact that without Catholicism - which pre-dates all sola scriptura Protestant denominations - there wouldn't even *be* a Bible.

fact, Mary did not officially become a virgin in Catholicism until 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the belief infallible.


Um. Mary was always a virgin. Pope Pius IX's ex cathedra pronouncement simply clarified the doctrine of the Church, which had been engaged in disagreement regarding Mary's virginity. Pope Pius IX didn't assert her virginity, he firmly defined and clarified Church teaching.

And, for the record, the Immaculate Conception refers to St. Ann's conceiving of Mary, not Mary's conception of Christ - that is the Annunciation. The Immaculate Conception happened the "normal" way; the Annunciation was brought about by the Holy Spirit.

Super Id said...

Amy,

I don't disagree with you regarding the orgins of Sola scripture. And, I'm well aware that Catholics have biblical readings, but the Catholic position, as I understand it, is that the Church is necessary to intepret scripture. I don't dispute that position.

You, yourself admit that a disagrement exists regarding Mary's virgin status
"had been engaged in disagreement regarding Mary's virginity."

Have you never thought that maybe the other side's position is correct? Or, does the claim of infallibility prevent the question?

Amy said...

the Catholic position, as I understand it, is that the Church is necessary to intepret scripture.

Yes. But that doesn't mean we think Scripture is unimportant or invalid. Indeed, we think it's so important that it needs to be consistently taught and interpreted - which is what the Church has done for two millenia.

From time to time, however, it's been necessary for the Church - specifically the Magisterium - to clarify points of doctrine that are either unclear or disputed. Which is what Pope Pius IX did with Mary.

Have you never thought that maybe the other side's position is correct?

Perhaps, when I was not Catholic and after I began my journey to converting to Catholicism. It's always prudent for Catholics to understand or study all sides in an argument (contrary to what many here and elsewhere will argue) and the Church provides ample theological argument and study as to why the Catholic position is accurate - both Scripturally and through Tradition.

Or, does the claim of infallibility prevent the question?


I believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true and right. While I have the free will to reject the teachings, I choose (again, through free will) to follow them.

So, the answer to that last question is both yes and no. Yes in that the ex cathedra teaching of Pope Pius the IX makes Marian doctrine the official teaching of the Church and - if I want to remain in full communion with the Church - I need to believe and follow this teaching. No in that I have the free will to reject it and jeopardize the state of my communion with the Church.