Did anyone claim this BEFORE it started to become socially acceptable to be out and gay, or is this revisionist theology? There’s an enjoyable documentary (https://www.1946themovie.com/) about how Protestant churches went the other way, becoming more anti-gay in the 20th century.
I think it’s great that people who want to be Christian are reading the Bible in such a way that supports that, and I really don’t care how likely or unlikely their readings are. The base text was written and put together at a time when contemporary understandings of gender, sexuality, and race were not available. Anyone looking at theology through the lens of logic is going to understand that. An institution with the temporal heft of the Catholic Church is going to be a few centuries behind, no matter what, and I think people are largely okay with that (which is not to say they’re okay with everything the Catholic church does: condoning sexually abusive priests, for example, is really terrible, and just one of a laundry list of issues the institution has).
This. I shockingly enough genuinely believe in G-d. I’ve found various Jewish groups lacking (In many Orthodox communities the wife does all the work. The husband gets all the power and respect and domestic violence is higher than average). But I still strongly identify as a Jew both culutrally and theologically. I hear the voice of the Lord and he speaks with the same accent as Doctor Zoidberg. For me to say ‘There is no G-d’ would be to deny a truth I know very plainly. Trauma doesn’t enter into it. I assume most Catholics can affirm in their hearts the Apostolic Creed and believe they belong to the One True Church.
Not sure about that. The Catholics whom I know personally, ritually mouth the words of the Creed but I imagine few have thought about what it means. As to belonging to the One True Church, most of them simply are attached to their parish, their community, and take comfort in their religion; they don’t feel that Catholicism is the only right form of Christianity. That rigid fervor is more associated with the very conservative branches. The RC’s have more than a billion adherents, you can find every possible flavor in there.
I also might mention that of the practicing Catholics I know, a significant percentage are gay. Including of course many of the priests.
If you think Catholics have a get out of Hell free card, I invite you to look at some Protestant denominations. You don’t even have to say “my bad,” all you have to do is proclaim Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. No repentance, no promising to sin no more.
Or you could go straight to Calvanism, and claim that God had declared you bound for Heaven before you were even born.
Yes, of course! I was responding with the hypothetical Catholic inclined to leave the Church but torn over the feeling in mind, per the OP’s question.
Any Catholic, gay or otherwise, who is fulfilled by the liturgy, and the relationship with a loving God it helps lead them to, is happy where he or she is. If I implied all Catholics struggle with a need to rationalize remaining a Catholic, I apologize. I know plenty of devout, happy Catholics.
no offense i think part of the problem with religion after the old testament is paul who was a known prude in most things seemed to write the rules of it
The perception often felt around places like… well, this Board, is that the “picking on” is not just on the Holy See, but on the congregants, the body of the church, that as mentioned in a recent post, sometimes come across, even if unintentionally, as if questioning “how can you justify staying Catholic” or even why don’t the ones remaining in rise against the institution.
Paul was an upright, orthodox (with a small o) Jew, and much of the basic morality he hoped to inculcate in the new Christian communities was congruent with the Pharisee sect, of which Paul was a part, before his mystical revelation. The context is important; the Jews were a small, oppressed, population within the Roman Empire, living in close proximity to many other religions (there was quite a ferment at that time and in that place), one of the most prominent of which was Greek, which celebrated male homosexual practices in which boy prostitutes figured largely, and religious prostitution of both sexes. Much of Paul’s missionary work was to the Greek cities.
Paul and his school had an enormous influence on Christianity, but he wasn’t a prude per se, because that implies he was unusually narrow, which for a Jew he really was not. It’s hard to argue that Jesus would have had big issues with Paul’s morality.
I get the impression that since the scandals, the BSA has been more proactive than the Catholic Church, at least as far as preventing abuse in the first place, as opposed to just mitigating its effects. The BSA is pretty proactive and open about abuse these days, while I’m not so sure the Catholic Church is nearly so open - I haven’t really heard how they screen prospective seminarians for history of child abuse, what measures/training are in place for preventing child abuse, or anything like that. The BSA has all that and takes it seriously.
My quibble about the phrase ‘picking on’ was not just pedantry. People use words carelessly which nevertheless shapes the conversation. Believers, even of ones with a faith as predominant as Catholicism like to frame themselves as victims. They are ‘attacked’ or ‘threatened’ and there is a war to destroy their ideals and very way of life.
On the topic of Homosexuality and this facet of American Belief, lets bear in mind who is really being ‘picked on’.