Kabebe - How Long Before Catholics Warm Up To Faggots?

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

• Tweet

From the recent actions by the pope, it seems, pro-homosexual sentiments have been close at the top than previously thought by some of us. Indeed, there had been romours that the current pope was "understanding" to homosexuality, but at one time you rubbished these romours. Were you shocked by what transpired?

I think at this rate, the Catholic church is headed for a major split in about 15 years time. Faggotry is the devils weapon of choice for this generation. 

[sitting bull]

I think it should be...when will they publicly admit that they've been secretly practising it for ages. There were popes who were said to be faggot?!

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

I think it should be...when will they publicly admit that they've been secretly practising it for ages. There were popes who were said to be faggot?!

Do you have evidence or are you just speaking nonsense?

[RV Pundit]

Faggots have earn the right to be faggots. So accept and move on. This will become the new normal everywhere.

If you fight hard and strong enough...they will make you part of the system.

Blacks (thro' slavery,colonialism,apartheid,civil rights) and women (feminism movement) fought to be accepted as EQUAL human beings....Gays have done the same...and they are winning i think everywhere.

[kadame]

From the recent actions by the pope, it seems, pro-homosexual sentiments have been close at the top than previously thought by some of us. Indeed, there had been romours that the current pope was "understanding" to homosexuality, but at one time you rubbished these romours. Were you shocked by what transpired?

I think at this rate, the Catholic church is headed for a major split in about 15 years time. Faggotry is the devils weapon of choice for this generation.

Hey, KD. Long time.

Yes, there has been a MAJOR brouhaha all over catholic media in the past 3 weeks over the wording of that "relatio" 2 weeks ago, I have been following it closely.

First of all, forget the Homo stuff. That's going nowhere, it wasn't even part of the synod discussions perse. What happened was that one of the "secretaries", called Forte snuck it into the document without letting the Bishops see it first and then went ahead and released it to the media. So the Bishops were just as shocked as the rest of us that they had said such a thing when they did not. The Pope himself has already said "that is not a marriage", so the idea of homosexuality believe me is nowhere in sight. That ship has sailed. It's not even 15% of Bishops who want it, its more like a very small number of people.

The BIG vita/war going on has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's about the church admitting those catholics who have remarried after divorce back to communion without either:

a) first getting an annulment of their first marriage so that the 2nd marriage can be regularized or
b) committing to abstinence in their second marriage.

The thing is that the church's doctrine is that the 2nd marriage is adultery per the teaching of Christ and St. Paul, and that people who have not repented of mortal sin should not approach communion per St. Paul's words that those who approach communion unworthily bring condemnation upon  themselves.

Catholis say this teaching is not reversible because to reverse it would be to purport to correct Christ himself after he revoked the Mosaic allowance for divorce. Cardinal Kasper is proposing that the remarried can be allowed to communion based on some law "of graduality" and basing it on the practice in one of the ancient canons by an early church council and the sayings of a church father called st. Basil, where the canons were accepted by almost 3/4 ecumenical councils. They basically allowed Christians who had entered 2nd marriages after divorce to do penance for a number of years (I think 7) and readmitted them back the regular life of the church. So cardinal Kasper claims there is precedent in the church for this, but most Catholic theologians and Bishops say there is no way to say that without directly disobeying Jesus and the church has no authority to reverse something Jesus himself laid down. That's the big fight, my friend, and believe me it is a biiiiig fight.

Kasperr and his supporters are motivated by the fact that due to decline of Christian culture in the West, many many catholics are now in 2nd marriages which the church calls a state of "public and permanent adultery". Most were not taught anything about their faith and are now just starting to return to the church wanting to be faithful catholic then they discover they are in a very difficult position, because divorcing their current spouse or even ceasing sexual relations is too big a requirement for them. Many of those who want to return to the church have submitted to the annulment tribunals and had their previous marriage annulled, so they are OK. The problem is with those who have gone through the annulment tribunal and their previous marriages are found valid. that means their current marriage is adulterous. So they stay away from communion and cant even get absolution in confession because a requirement for absolution of sins is the intention not to repeat the sin, which they cant of course have as long as they are with their spouses. For African Bishops, their issue is with their flock who are in a polygamous arrangement or come we stay marriage where for one reason or another, the other spouse wont submit to the church's teachings, so the spouses who want to go back to the life of the church are in a difficult position.

This where ALL the war is, not gay stuff. That gay stuff was an attempt by one Bishop to introduce it into the discussion that failed miserably. What it succeeded in doing was create a monumental PR mess that will now take forever to clear up/clarify.

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

This where ALL the war is, not gay stuff. That gay stuff was an attempt by one Bishop to introduce it into the discussion that failed miserably. What it succeeded in doing was create a monumental PR mess that will now take forever to clear up/clarify.

Hi KB,

I think the issue of communion for remarried folks is really a difficult part. Or for Africans in polygamous marriages. In addition, the interpretation of what needs to happen after divorce is pretty difficult.

As for the mess created by the secretary, isn't that a Major crime? Shouldn't the secretary be kicked out? Shouldn't the vatican make an unequivocal statement? What's this ambivalence about? What is so hard in the pope issuing a statement that's pretty clear? That faggotry is a despicable sin - no any different from bestiality?

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

Faggots have earn the right to be faggots. So accept and move on. This will become the new normal everywhere.

If you fight hard and strong enough...they will make you part of the system.

Blacks (thro' slavery,colonialism,apartheid,civil rights) and women (feminism movement) fought to be accepted as EQUAL human beings....Gays have done the same...and they are winning i think everywhere.

They can fight for as long as they want, but they can never force anyone to "accept them."

[kadame]

This where ALL the war is, not gay stuff. That gay stuff was an attempt by one Bishop to introduce it into the discussion that failed miserably. What it succeeded in doing was create a monumental PR mess that will now take forever to clear up/clarify.

Hi KB,

I think the issue of communion for remarried folks is really a difficult part. Or for Africans in polygamous marriages. In addition, the interpretation of what needs to happen after divorce is pretty difficult.

As for the mess created by the secretary, isn't that a Major crime? Shouldn't the secretary be kicked out? Shouldn't the vatican make an unequivocal statement? What's this ambivalence about? What is so hard in the pope issuing a statement that's pretty clear? That faggotry is a despicable sin - no any different from bestiality?

Indeed, indeed. You are absolutely right and this chiefly, what you've pointed out, the "ambivalence" is the chief criticism the Pope is receiving from Catholics. They think he wants to be liked by the media, for the adoration he has been receiving from them to continue, so every time he's asked about this issue, he simply says that the church has already taught on the subject and that he does not need to talk about it. One Cardinal Burke said plainly that due to the confusion created by that fiasco all over the world, that the only way to clear it is for the Pope to make a clear and categorical statement restating what is in the catechism, because the synod of bishops issued another statement but it did not reverse the damage, but the Pope has not said anything yet. He makes general comments but always avoids stating particulars and this is what has turned so many Catholics hostile towards him almost overnight, unlike their very respectful attitude towards other Popes and even him (before the synod). They compare him to St. Peter when he tried to please the juddaizers because he was scared of them until St Paul rebuked him to his face. There is also another Pope (Honorius I) in the early church who was anathematized by the church for cowardly giving support to heretics while refusing to publicly support the orthodox position regarding the nature of Christ (2 wills, both divine and human). So you have many catholics all over comparing him to these popes in the past, but he has not indicated that he supports heresy. All his public statements on the question are orthodox, so we may criticize his approach but those calling him heretic are going way too far. What I know is that he has unwittingly set himself up---either himself or his next successor--for a serious media backlash for when he is forced to state the position after the synod next year, because then the world (liberals, to be precise) will feel like he has betrayed them and gone back when he never actually supported their positions in the first place.

[kadame]

Also, Forte cannot really be punished because the relatio was only a type of "minutes" for the discussions of the first week. So the fact that there was a bishop who spoke of it, either orally or in one of the written speeches they presented, meant technically it can be there in the relatio as a summary of what was said. but the way he presented it made it look like it was a major discussion and then they mistranslated it in the English and made it look much more gay-friendly that it was in Italian. The secretaries were asked and they clarified these were not conclusions but a summary of discussions/debates, so you cant punish him for doing a shody-minutes taking job. Also, the Pope had said no one should be censured, let evey bishop speak freely in the synod, so again you cant exactly punish him for that. My issue is why on earth they were releasing those unofficial "summaries" in the first place (without the bishops' knowledge) instead of waiting for the synod's final document to be released. In any case, the Pope from the end of the synod and now on his trip to Asia has been speaking more clearly than he has been in his pontificate and I think he is finally starting to appreciate how delicately he must handle himself, he's not the Archbishop of Buenos Aires any more.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

From the recent actions by the pope, it seems, pro-homosexual sentiments have been close at the top than previously thought by some of us. Indeed, there had been romours that the current pope was "understanding" to homosexuality, but at one time you rubbished these romours. Were you shocked by what transpired?

I think at this rate, the Catholic church is headed for a major split in about 15 years time. Faggotry is the devils weapon of choice for this generation. 

I have been getting bits and pieces of that from surprised and shocked Catholics.  That gay piece, rather harmlessly, recognizing them as humans with gifts raised a lot of whispers in this particularly conservative circle of mine.

The problem, as I see it, is not so much a split as a continued decline in membership.  Especially in the west.  When people opt for practical solutions in the face of a religion that won't let go off the dark ages.

[kadame]

KD, read this for example, notice the pope's language: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-is-being-proposed-is-not-marriage-pope-calls-for-defense-of-family-12766/

It's also false that the gay comment recognized gays as "humans with gifts". That was not at all the problem and would not have been new either if that is what was actually stated. It's right in the Catechism. Gay PEOPLE are valued, gay ACTS declared sinful, and gay ORIENTATION considered disordered. The thing that catholics found troubling was that the relatio said that Gay people should be valued for their orientation, instead of simply for being human. It was basically saying the orientation is something good in itself. That was the problem . The funny thing about decline in membership in the West, a problem that affects liberal-leaning churches much MUCH more than anyone, while dark ages groups/churches/religions/convents continue to gain membership. An interesting phenomenon. German Cardinals are pushing for this nonsense because they tax catholics 9% of their income and many are leaving because the church is busy taxing them while not teaching them anything. Instead of evaluating their hefty incomes they want to evaluate the faith, strange people, these Germans.

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

All his public statements on the question are orthodox, so we may criticize his approach but those calling him heretic are going way too far. What I know is that he has unwittingly set himself up---either himself or his next successor--for a serious media backlash for when he is forced to state the position after the synod next year, because then the world (liberals, to be precise) will feel like he has betrayed them and gone back when he never actually supported their positions in the first place.

When people realize that you are not appeasing the "Liberals" or the "media" but you're actually in a war with the devil himself, is the day they'll stop appeasing them

I agree with the "teaching"as a response to ealing with a declining membership. @Terminator - the decline in church membership is simply because people no longer see Jesus in the church  especially the liberal church. The Quakers, who were a backbone of US civilization, are now a tiny minority after embracing homosexuality. today, Kenya has the highest population of quackers in the world. This is why people are joining Islam in droves especially in wetestern countries. And even if the leave, the Bible is clear   

2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.

[kadame]

All his public statements on the question are orthodox, so we may criticize his approach but those calling him heretic are going way too far. What I know is that he has unwittingly set himself up---either himself or his next successor--for a serious media backlash for when he is forced to state the position after the synod next year, because then the world (liberals, to be precise) will feel like he has betrayed them and gone back when he never actually supported their positions in the first place.

When people realize that you are not appeasing the "Liberals" or the "media" but you're actually in a war with the devil himself, is the day they'll stop appeasing them

I agree with the "teaching"as a response to ealing with a declining membership. @Terminator - the decline in church membership is simply because people no longer see Jesus in the church  especially the liberal church. The Quakers, who were a backbone of US civilization, are now a tiny minority after embracing homosexuality. today, Kenya has the highest population of quackers in the world. This is why people are joining Islam in droves especially in wetestern countries. And even if the leave, the Bible is clear   

2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.

It's a myth commonly perpetrated by liberals who actually know very little about the situation of religions in terms of statistics and particulars. All one needs do is look at Episcopalians and Methodists, they will no longer exist in the West in the next 10-20 years, because all their membership consists of old people who are already dying off. These are supposed to be the "guiding lights" for other religions to follow, having thrown away all their beliefs about morals. If there is anything constant that's been proven in the last 40 years, if a religion is interested in committing suicide, turning liberal is the quickest and most efficient way to do it. Even in Catholic groups, liberals ones are dying completely, with members no younger than 70. All the young membership of the church comes from congregations that would be considered conservative or even ultratraditionalist. The same is replicated among Protestant groups. A very interesting phenomenon indeed.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

All his public statements on the question are orthodox, so we may criticize his approach but those calling him heretic are going way too far. What I know is that he has unwittingly set himself up---either himself or his next successor--for a serious media backlash for when he is forced to state the position after the synod next year, because then the world (liberals, to be precise) will feel like he has betrayed them and gone back when he never actually supported their positions in the first place.

When people realize that you are not appeasing the "Liberals" or the "media" but you're actually in a war with the devil himself, is the day they'll stop appeasing them

I agree with the "teaching"as a response to ealing with a declining membership. @Terminator - the decline in church membership is simply because people no longer see Jesus in the church  especially the liberal church. The Quakers, who were a backbone of US civilization, are now a tiny minority after embracing homosexuality. today, Kenya has the highest population of quackers in the world. This is why people are joining Islam in droves especially in wetestern countries. And even if the leave, the Bible is clear   

2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.

That isn't what I meant.  Though some fundamentalist might certainly see it that way.


I meant situations like a person divorced and happily remarried with a family.  The old spouse also remarried with separate family.  That such an arrangement can be frowned upon on the whims of medieval logic.  Some people will take the sensible approach.

[Kichwambaya]

First and foremost you need to stop calling homesexuals faggots. It just shows how much hate you have for fellow humanbeings whose only crime is that they are different from you.  The catholic church and the christian protestant conservative fundamentalists hypocrites will soon have to swallow their pride and accept homesexuals.  Catholics will probably lead the way with a major change in their theological teachings. Its been done before with slaves and I saw the shift that American conservative fundamentalist did with the state of Isreal and now they are the most rabid supporters of the Israeli state even more than the zionists themselves. The catholic church must make the move now and the rest of the christian protestant conservatives will follow later in this gay issue.

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

All his public statements on the question are orthodox, so we may criticize his approach but those calling him heretic are going way too far. What I know is that he has unwittingly set himself up---either himself or his next successor--for a serious media backlash for when he is forced to state the position after the synod next year, because then the world (liberals, to be precise) will feel like he has betrayed them and gone back when he never actually supported their positions in the first place.

When people realize that you are not appeasing the "Liberals" or the "media" but you're actually in a war with the devil himself, is the day they'll stop appeasing them

I agree with the "teaching"as a response to ealing with a declining membership. @Terminator - the decline in church membership is simply because people no longer see Jesus in the church  especially the liberal church. The Quakers, who were a backbone of US civilization, are now a tiny minority after embracing homosexuality. today, Kenya has the highest population of quackers in the world. This is why people are joining Islam in droves especially in wetestern countries. And even if the leave, the Bible is clear   

2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.

That isn't what I meant.  Though some fundamentalist might certainly see it that way.


I meant situations like a person divorced and happily remarried with a family.  The old spouse also remarried with separate family.  That such an arrangement can be frowned upon on the whims of medieval logic.  Some people will take the sensible approach.

The issue of divorce is pretty difficult. Unlike vooke's church of 50 people where the good pastor can ignore such a thing as he prays about it, the Catholic church doesn't have this liberty. It's not like contaceptives where you teach what you believe and people do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their homes, but this is actually a case of if you allow people who are living an adulterous life to partake the communion, (that's the interpretation of many churches.) Now, at what point do you stop?

[kadame]

First and foremost you need to stop calling homesexuals faggots. It just shows how much hate you have for fellow humanbeings whose only crime is that they are different from you.  The catholic church and the christian protestant conservative fundamentalists hypocrites will soon have to swallow their pride and accept homesexuals.  Catholics will probably lead the way with a major change in their theological teachings. Its been done before with slaves and I saw the shift that American conservative fundamentalist did with the state of Isreal and now they are the most rabid supporters of the Israeli state even more than the zionists themselves. The catholic church must make the move now and the rest of the christian protestant conservatives will follow later in this gay issue.

The catholic church is engaged in a serious battle over the mere question of admitting remarried catholics to communion--something other churches already accepted decades ago, and here you are waiting for them to accept that homosexuality is ok. You will be waiting a long time.

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

First and foremost you need to stop calling homesexuals faggots. It just shows how much hate you have for fellow humanbeings whose only crime is that they are different from you.  The catholic church and the christian protestant conservative fundamentalists hypocrites will soon have to swallow their pride and accept homesexuals.  Catholics will probably lead the way with a major change in their theological teachings. Its been done before with slaves and I saw the shift that American conservative fundamentalist did with the state of Isreal and now they are the most rabid supporters of the Israeli state even more than the zionists themselves. The catholic church must make the move now and the rest of the christian protestant conservatives will follow later in this gay issue.

Why MUST the Catholic church make this fundamental shift? This is what i don't understand with liberals. How come you've never said, MUSLIMS MUST make this fundamental shift? If you believe faggotry is cool, okay, and something to be celebrated; why must you force other people to accept it? So much for tolerance.

What makes people HATE everything to do with homosexuality, has little to do with what they do in their privacy, but what they are forcing us to "accept" and "celebrate." They took a great word, - "gay" and turned it into something evil. It would have been better if they stuck to queer. That's why i still use faggot. I think the dictionary says it's ok

[kadame]

First and foremost you need to stop calling homesexuals faggots. It just shows how much hate you have for fellow humanbeings whose only crime is that they are different from you.  The catholic church and the christian protestant conservative fundamentalists hypocrites will soon have to swallow their pride and accept homesexuals.  Catholics will probably lead the way with a major change in their theological teachings. Its been done before with slaves and I saw the shift that American conservative fundamentalist did with the state of Isreal and now they are the most rabid supporters of the Israeli state even more than the zionists themselves. The catholic church must make the move now and the rest of the christian protestant conservatives will follow later in this gay issue.

Why MUST the Catholic church make this fundamental shift? This is what i don't understand with liberals. How come you've never said, MUSLIMS MUST make this fundamental shift? If you believe faggotry is cool, okay, and something to be celebrated; why must you force other people to accept it? So much for tolerance.

I have always wondered myself. Apparently, religions are supposed to obey the tenets of secular-humanism, a religion in its own right if you look at it properly, and they are to disregard their own faith wherever it clashes with what this movement believes.  Very strange. You are right. You will find them preaching in Africa that we must accept gays, which of course we should, but they wouldn't be caught dead saying so in Saudi Arabia where they cut off the heads of gay people, or in Iran where they hang them. The thing I most hate about liberals, despite a lot of convergence I have with them on many issues, is this hypocritical double standard. After all, if the church's teaching will lead her to become extinct, what is it to you? Why does that bother you? Should you not be happy and let it die a natural death? And why is it so painful that she believes what she does? Shouldn't you just ignore it and be at peace in your gay marriage? But nooo, you have pressure groups trying to force religions to disbelieve their own faith and accept some modernist clap trap. Such hubris!

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

When people realize that you are not appeasing the "Liberals" or the "media" but you're actually in a war with the devil himself, is the day they'll stop appeasing them

I agree with the "teaching"as a response to ealing with a declining membership. @Terminator - the decline in church membership is simply because people no longer see Jesus in the church  especially the liberal church. The Quakers, who were a backbone of US civilization, are now a tiny minority after embracing homosexuality. today, Kenya has the highest population of quackers in the world. This is why people are joining Islam in droves especially in wetestern countries. And even if the leave, the Bible is clear   

2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.

That isn't what I meant.  Though some fundamentalist might certainly see it that way.


I meant situations like a person divorced and happily remarried with a family.  The old spouse also remarried with separate family.  That such an arrangement can be frowned upon on the whims of medieval logic.  Some people will take the sensible approach.

The issue of divorce is pretty difficult. Unlike vooke's church of 50 people where the good pastor can ignore such a thing as he prays about it, the Catholic church doesn't have this liberty. It's not like contaceptives where you teach what you believe and people do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their homes, but this is actually a case of if you allow people who are living an adulterous life to partake the communion, (that's the interpretation of many churches.) Now, at what point do you stop?

That is my point.  When the partaking in communion conflicts with your family's well being.  When you are told you are living in sin because you quit a failed marriage and opted for something more wholesome.  With a family to boot. 


I like to think the choice is straightforward for those inclined to cater to the interests of the family.