Thursday 29 June 2023

ANGLICAN AND CATHOLIC TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Anglican teaching is that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture. And they always will be.

If the Anglican Church changes its teaching (and it will!) it will reduce itself to zero credibility. Not that it has any real credibility I hear you say!


The Catholic Church will never change its teaching that homosexual acts are grave depravity. Thank God for the Catholic Church!


From The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an

exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great

variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. It psychological genesis remains

largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts

of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10),

tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation

for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They

close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual

complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not

negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They

must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination

in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and,

if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may

encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them

their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and

sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection


24 comments:

  1. "Anglican teaching is that homosexual acts are in compatible with Scripture.

    Gene, get your head out of the sand and for that matter out of your own arse, and join the real world, not the imaginary one where homosexuals can be stoned to death with impunity, and the women who are raped and become pregnant are forced to bear rapists' children because it was probably their fault anyway.

    YOU ARE WRONG about the Church of England's teaching on homosexuality, as witness this report in The Guardian newspaper of February this year.

    "Church of England votes in favour of blessings for same-sex unions

    Passing of motion at General Synod represents profound shift in church’s stance on homosexuality

    Harriet Sherwood@harrietsherwood

    Thu 9 Feb 2023 18.39 GMT

    Church of England priests will be permitted to bless the civil marriages of same-sex couples in a profound shift in the church’s stance on homosexuality after a historic vote by its governing body.

    The first blessings for gay couples could happen this summer. Individual churches will be encouraged to state clearly whether they will offer blessings to avoid confusion and disappointment.

    The synod also agreed that the church will apologise for the harm it has caused to LGBTQ+ people. It welcomed a forthcoming review of a ban on clergy entering into same-sex civil marriages and a celibacy rule for clergy in same-sex relationships.

    Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York, said they hoped the decision marked a “new beginning” for the C of E, saying: “It has been a long road to get us to this point.”

    The archbishops said: “For the first time, the C of E will publicly, unreservedly and joyfully welcome same-sex couples in church.

    “The church continues to have deep differences on these questions which go to the heart of our human identity. As archbishops, we are committed to respecting the conscience of those for whom this goes too far and to ensure that they have all the reassurances they need in order to maintain the unity of the church as this conversation continues.”

    Sarah Mullally, the bishop of London, who led the debate, said: “This is a moment of hope for the church.” But, she added,“I know that what we have proposed as a way forward does not go nearly far enough for many, but too far for others”.

    Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, who supports marriage equality, said the vote was a “significant and historic step”. He said: “Same-sex couples will become much more visible and their relationships will be celebrated publicly and that, I think, will continue to change attitudes within the life of the church.”

    Gay rights campaigners were frustrated that their demand that a proposal for marriage equality be put before the synod within two years was rejected by 52% to 45%.

    Jayne Ozanne, a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ equality in the C of E, said allowing blessings for same-sex couples was a “tiny step forward”. She added: “I am deeply disappointed by the way the conservatives have consistently sought to undermine those of us who sought to move towards a church that could embrace a plurality of views on sexuality.”

    Nigel Pietroni, the chair of the Campaign for Equal Marriage in the C of E, said the decision “falls short of what we ultimately believe is the only outcome for radical inclusion – equal marriage for all people”, but it was “a small step forward”.

    The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “The offer of blessings to same-sex partners is an insult. Every heterosexual man and woman in England has the right to marry in their parish church - but not LGBTQ+ couples. That’s discrimination and discrimination is not a Christian value.”

    The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches said the decision raised the question of the archbishop of Canterbury’s “fitness to lead what is still a largely orthodox worldwide communion”.

    Up yours, bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why post all this verbiage? I know where the Church of England stands on this issue. Right now it teaches that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture. That will change as I predicted many times. But will Scripture change?

    When the first gay marriages take place in C of E churches that will be the end of the C of E. I predict that there will be a massive move amongst the C of E faithful into the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because you are deliberately misrepresenting the position of the Church of England as well as posting yards of tedious crap about original sin, and because if anyone actually does read this apology for a blog [which I seriously doubt], then I don't want them to believe your lies, or have them think that your nastiness, bigotry and dirty mind are somehow the qualities we can expect of Christian believers.

    But chiefly I do it because you are a thoroughly nasty piece of work, and whilst I still have the time and energy I don't want that to go unpunished.

    GOT THAT, BASTARD?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Because you are deliberately misrepresenting the position of the Church of England"

    I have not misrepresented the Church of England. As of now its teaching is that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture.
    That will change as many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate, as the Reverend Calvin Robinson puts it, sacramental sodomy.

    You have been misrepresenting the C of E claiming that it does not hold to the doctrine of Original Sin - despite this being clearly stated in the Thirty Nine Articles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I have not misrepresented the Church of England. As of now its teaching is that homosexual acts are incompatible with Scripture."

    Pathetic. Despite the fact that you know that radical changes to the teaching of the Anglican Church on homosexuality has already been initiated, you cling to the petty reservation that, for now, the 1998 doctrine of the church remains in print. It's exactly like your ridiculous maintaining that the House of Lords would prevent the passing into law of the Same Sex Marriages Act of 2013 - the last desperate squirmings of a defeated bigot.

    "That will change as many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate, as the Reverend Calvin Robinson puts it, sacramental sodomy."

    What a disgusting human being you are: you will come out with any demented filth rather than admit that history has proved you wrong.

    "You have been misrepresenting the C of E claiming that it does not hold to the doctrine of Original Sin - despite this being clearly stated in the Thirty Nine Articles."

    No I have not. I have pointed out, what is correct, that article 21 makes it clear that only scripturally based doctrines are necessary for salvation. Original sin is not scriptural, being developed 500 years after the death of Christ.

    The thing is, Gene, that I can go on refuting your lies as long as you keep repeating them. Given that, historically, most if not all of your opinions are logically untenable, you have developed the habit of believing that simply repeating false arguments renders them true. In the old TES days you got away with thinking that this worked, because people simply grew tired of your stupidity and gave up.

    But I am not going to give up. You are a piece of lying shit, and I am going to go demonstrating for as long as it takes.

    You are deliberately misrepresenting the position of the Church of England as well as posting yards of tedious crap about original sin, and because if anyone actually does read this apology for a blog [which I seriously doubt], then I don't want them to believe your lies, or have them think that your nastiness, bigotry and dirty mind are somehow the qualities we can expect of Christian believers.

    But chiefly I do it because you are a thoroughly nasty piece of work, and whilst I still have the time and energy I don't want that to go unpunished.

    GOT THAT, BASTARD?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are defeated. You know it. Your lies, bluff and bluster won't work.

    The C of E hold to the doctrine of Original Sin. Incontrovertible, Check Article 9 of the 39 Articles. Firstly you claimed Article 20 cancelled out Article 9. Now you claim Article 21 cancels out Article 9.

    Homosexuality is not God-given - only someone totally ignorant of Theology would claim that. Can't you get through your head why Pelagianism is a heresy? The authors of the 39 Articles could. Acting out of homosexual urges is depraved and evil. Same as any other evils caused by Original Sin.

    A few years back I read an interview with one of the Medjugorje visionaries. She said that gay marriage (sic) and abortion came directly from Satan. Satan, the Father of Lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can’t even get a simple fact right. It is Article 21 (see the Church Society website) that says that no doctrine is necessary for salvation unless it is scriptural. The doctrine of original sin was evolved by St Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century AD and is hence not scriptural. Claiming that it is based on the Garden of Eden myth is simply ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Nor have you provided the evidence I asked for which proves that homosexuality is a function of original sin - once again, cornered by your own ineptitude, you simply make stuff up.

      Delete
    3. And quoting a Medjugorje visionary as a theological source? Demented mountebanks, one step removed from the fortune teller at the fair, laying down the law about ANYTHING? If that’s the best you can do, do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself.

      Delete
  7. Detterling even now it is not too late for you to change. Move away from the proposed C of E plan to accept homosexual acts as being not sinful. Follow the Catholic Church's firm but compassionate approach:

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don’t patronise me, you bombastic clown. Compassionate approach my arse. After you equated homosexuality with genocidsl mass murder you start prating about “compassion”? Outrageous hypocrisy, you are fooling no-one. Piss off and tell your rosary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Detterling you are a man capable of a lot of malice. I did not equate homosexuality with genocidal mass murder. YOU DID. And you should apologise for this.

    Now, many readers may think you posted Homosexuality = Mass Murder because of confusion due to your failing abilities. You published this very deliberately. You have form for this. Remember posting that paedophilia = parking fines? Your were called out for this and your post was removed from the TES website mucho pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Balls, Gene. You wrote:

    "Homosexuality is no more God-given that the murderous propensities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot."

    To say that is to make a direct equivalence between homosexuality and a capability for mass-murder, and you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like, but you can't unsay it. And as for apologising for pointing this disgusting performance of yours out, you can stuff an apology up your capacious arse.

    "Now, many readers may think you posted Homosexuality = Mass Murder because of confusion due to your failing abilities."

    Ah, now the implication that I am becoming senile - a slut as nasty as it is malicious as it is unfounded. You filthy sod.

    "Remember posting that paedophilia = parking fines?"

    More lies. YOU were the one who posted that the rigorous investigation of paedophile priests was akin to a witch hunt for priests who had been given parking tickets. That was to make an equivalence between parking on a double yellow line and buggering a small boy or raping a small girl. Bang to rights AGAIN, Gene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Homosexuality is no more God-given that the murderous propensities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot."

      Yes, and I stand by that. All evils, whether minor or major, come from the Fall of Man and Original Sin.

      It is you who have equated homosexuality with mass murder. False and malicious and very deliberate.

      Delete
    2. And what I posted was that some enemies of the Catholic Church were so determined to find fault that they would even try to track down a priests who had parking fines.

      From this you falsely, maliciously and deliberately made the equating of paedophilia and parking fines. Disgusting, and thankfully your post was immediately removed from the TES website.

      Delete
  11. "It is you who have equated homosexuality with mass murder. False and malicious and very deliberate."

    No, Gene, I will not have that. You were the one who made the comparison, not me. But because you are a gutless prick, you haven't even the courage of your own malicious convictions.

    "And what I posted was that some enemies of the Catholic Church were so determined to find fault that they would even try to track down a priests who had parking fines."

    No you didn't, Gene. You posted that the drive expose paedophile priests was like a witch hunt to expose priests with parking tickets. You thus equated parking on a yellow line with buggering a small boy or raping a small girl. Disgusting; and now, not having the guts of a butterfly, you are trying to wriggle out of it.

    But you won't, Gene "Two Faced Fuckwit" Vincent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You lying bastard! What I wrote was: "Homosexuality is no more God-given that the murderous propensities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot." I made no comparison, You did. You are downright malicious.

      Delete
    2. No, Gene, it won’t wash, no matter how desperately you try to backpedal.

      Your post equated homosexuals with genocidal mass murderers.

      Your vast, slack drivelling gob and your limitless stupidity has caught you out AGAIN!!

      How delightful.

      Delete
  12. "You posted that the drive expose paedophile priests was like a witch hunt to expose priests with parking tickets."

    NO I DID NOT! You are a malicious bastard to twist what I wrote. Why was your post immediately removed from the TES website?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes you did

    Well, you are the authority on being a malicious bastard, given your pre-eminence in both fields.

    No it wasn’t.

    Stop making stuff up, you fraudulent prick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You lying bastard! If I had posted what you say it would never have been published on the TES website. It was - and was never removed. Yours was removed immediately as it was disgusting. If you are telling the truth why was your post removed immediately?

      Delete
  14. Because my post wasn’t removed immediately because I didn’t post it in the first place. It was you who implicitly compared parking on a double yellow line to buggering a small boy or raping a small girl. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Because my post wasn’t removed immediately because I didn’t post it in the first place."

    You lying bastard! You know perfectly well you posted it. It was disgusting and was immediately removed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, Gene, it won’t wash, no matter how desperately you try to backpedal.

    You posted on TES Opinion that the drive to expose paedophile priests was like a witch hunt to expose priests with parking tickets.

    Your post on here last week equated homosexuals with genocidal mass murderers.

    Your vast, slack, drivelling gob and your limitless stupidity have caught you out AGAIN!!

    And now you are screaming blue murder because, like all bullying bastards, you are a coward: you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Suck on that, Gene "Two-Faced Snivelling Cry-baby" Vincent.

    ReplyDelete