Well, the cat's out of the bag. We have heard that there is a major faction in the Vatican of gay cardinals who are like a "Velvet Mafia" and may be involved in embezzling Vatican funds. And now the highest bishop of Britain, Cardinal Keith O'Brian, has been accused by three priests of "inappropriate" homosexual seductions. And now it's all going to come out. All of it. And now I understand why Pope Benedict resigned. The unspoken vow of secrecy amongs the homosexual Catholic clergy has been breached, and now the accusations are going to fly. Priests are going to come out of the woodwork and accuse bishops and cardinals of seducing them into homosexuality. And this will bring down the Church to a new and even lower esteem. And once again lay Catholics will have to endure humiliation while their non-Catholic friends mock their Church. So now the sickness has been revealed. We now know why the Church has fallen so fast since Vatican II. We know why the laymen are leaving the Church, we know why there is crisis in vocations, why the Catholic Mass is only a shallow shell of what it formerly was. All along, homosexual priests and bishops have been undermining our Church from within. And God has finally had enough, and his wrath will be horrible to behold.
Why are some people so willing to accept any rumors as true? Me- as a non-Catholic- I think that all this is likely to turn out to be the usual anti-Catholic slimey rumor mill. But then again- I am not a Catholic- you Catholics can believe the worst of your church if you want.
What will it take for you to understand the stupidity of your religion. You do nothing but talk about hate for gay people, but yet you are still a member of this. Don't you think if your god hated gays, he would have stopped your leaders from being gay? Chris
They should become Orthodox. Orthodoxy is basically the same as Roman catholicism, but without the scandals, without the history of crusades, inquisitions, indulgences, etc. And without allegiance to Rome. And they have all the historical credentials of the RCC, as well.
To note that the New Testament (which is the guiding light of Christianity) condemns homosexual unions is hardly tantamount to one's asserting that God "hate gays"...
I'm sorry... now it is a conspiracy to undermine the Catholic church? The molestation of children... and their cover-up by the church... these were instruments of lifelong devotion to "tarnish" the Catholic church by... gays? Cause gays are pedophiles... and pedophile priests were not really priests but centuries long conspirators. What would you say if a liberal came in here and suggested that Obama was undermined by a vast right wing conspiracy to disparage the party? You would suggest it was ludicrous. Welcome to the world of tin foil.
How about we see some concrete evidence before leaping to conclusions? Why do we have such a tendency to equate news articles with anonymous accusations as akin to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? This is especially so since one accusation tends to breed others, true or false. To be frank, people have now learned that the Church has deep pockets ripe for picking in civil courts. That doesn't mean all accusations of anything are false, but it is reasonable to pause with a measured skepticism. At any rate, fortunately, the Church has never claimed special moral virtue for priests, bishops, or even popes. So as much as people may use the sins of clergymen as a measuring stick for the truth of the Church, the truth lies in her dogma and nowhere else.
and not all people read posts. Your post didn't respond to what he said. "To note that the New Testament (which is the guiding light of Christianity) condemns homosexual unions is hardly tantamount to one's asserting that God "hate gays"..." Not all Christians interpret the New Testament in the same way(s).
Well, the apostle Paul declares--quite unequivocally--that practicing homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9, NASB). Whereas skeptics may wish to dismiss this passage, it is very difficult to imagine how anyone might "interpret" it to mean anything other than what it plainly asserts. Note: In I Timothy 1:10, practicing homosexuals are lumped together with "immoral men...and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching" (NASB). Again, those words hardly seem open to various "interpret[ations]."
Considering the sheer, breathtaking number of sex-abuse scandals, along with violence and oppression that the Catholic church has generated over the years, I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss this as a rumour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
All I can say is when I was in Catholic high school, we knew which brothers and priests to NOT get alone with...
I've seen different interpretations of that. Really. Even so, that is for individuals to work out in their own hearts and minds. Not all human beings ascribe to identical religious beliefs and some are not religious at all. That is reality. Oh yes, it can and has been interpreted in various ways. You can debate/fault someone's interpretation of the Bible... but as long as people are HUMAN, you will have various interpretations of Scripture. If believing all of the Bible literally, and considering it to be absolutely inerrant is your thing then you should live by it, in that particular way. Certainly, what you believe is NOT necessarily for everyone. (See the above.)
Then, perhaps you would care to elucidate? How else do you suppose that those (rather plain) words might be "interpreted"? And on what grounds? Some of the Bible is figurative. This includes the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. The Apocalypse in Catholic Bibles) and the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of Matthew 24 (together with its correlaries in Mark 13 and Luke 17 and 21). It also includes some Old Testament books, from both the so-called "Major Prothets" and the "Minor Prophets." Even among those words that are clearly literal (and non-apocalyptic passages are generally literal), sometimes the customs of the time and place in question come into play. Hence, Paul's admonition to "greet one another with a holy kiss" is probably not incumbent upon Christians in twenty-first-century America. Likewise, both Paul and Jesus suggested feet-washing. (For Paul, it appears to have been--primarily, at least--an act of hospitality; wheras, for Jesus, it was a demonstration of humility.) But this is probably also not obligatory nowadays. And the so-called "women's covering" of II Corinthians 11 is likely predicated upon the first-century customs of the Christians at Corinth. (This, notwithstanding the appeal to "the angels" in verse 10; which some have seen as evidence of this instruction's resting upon eternal principle.) But there is no evidence--so far as I can see, at least--that the references to homosexual practice is confined to a certain time and/or a certain place. And there is certainly no evidence that a proscription against homosexual practice means that God "hates gays"...
