Don't tell ME it isn't a deviancy! . . . Catholics only, please.

[Debi1967]

Certainly. Read my posts in this thread, please. Don't read others' interpretations of them. Read the posts themselves. I'm not advocating limiting anybody's freedom to speak.



What do we have left? An echo chamber.

Then why repost something I already answered I do not understand that .... If you disgreed with my assessment then, why did you not address it then? See this is what I am not understanding ....

 

[Ann M]

My mind is going blank, but isn't there a passage in the Bible that essentially says that if we teach the children to sin, then they are not at fault, but we shall be punished. Is not allowing these children to be adopted by gay couples and not protesting, therefore a sin on our behalf of exposing the children to sin

 

[Ann M]

[bible]Matthew 18:6[/bible]

 

[CaDan]

Then why repost something I already answered I do not understand that .... If you disgreed with my assessment then, why did you not address it then? See this is what I am not understanding ....

I'm not sure what you and I are quarreling about, either. So let's just stop and have some ice cream. It is yummy and delicious!

 

[Debi1967]

My mind is going blank, but isn't there a passage in the Bible that essentially says that if we teach the children to sin, then they are not at fault, but we shall be punished. Is not allowing these children to be adopted by gay couples and not protesting, therefore a sin on our behalf of exposing the children to sin

I found it and I love Esword

Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

 

[Debi1967]

I'm not sure what you and I are quarreling about, either. So let's just stop and have some ice cream. It is yummy and delicious!

lol....ok but I get first dibs on the chocolate and you better not get in my way either .... I am a woman after all

 

[kimber1]

The well being of the child must always be put first in these cases.

The Church is pretty clear that by allowing homosexual couples to adopt the child, no matter how nice or loving they are, is "doing violence" to the child.

Who are we to do violence to children? We do not have that right.



from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

oy, i have 8 pages to catch up on so forgive me if this has already been answered somewhere along the way, but is what you stated up there a de facto statement? i mean, is this somehting that can be disagreed with?

 

[Debi1967]

oy, i have 8 pages to catch up on so forgive me if this has already been answered somewhere along the way, but is what you stated up there a de facto statement? i mean, is this somehting that can be disagreed with?

Umm if it comes from the Holy See to the Congregations and it is re-iterrating Doctrine what do you think?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yep yep...I did mention that way back...glad it was brot back up.

That milstone sounds pretty frightening, and of which if the Church willingly participates they are accountable as a whole Institution.

Which is why they should fight that.

 

[Debi1967]

Better question should we, is it in our best interests to disagree with the Council of the Pope on matters of Faith?

 

[Debi1967]

KIM,
Your right Liberal is not a dirty word as long as it does not defy what we are taught..... One has to take precedence over the other .... You are entitled to your thoughts but there has to come a time when we simply submit .... We do not question every single little thing simply because to us we do not agree, that is why we have the council of the Church to begin with, because we as laypeople sometimes do not know how we should apply something .... Therefore our submission is called for in this because of that .... even when we do not agree ....

Unless you can post Scripture and doctrinal proof that would state that the Pope's position is wrong then it is as stated and should remain that way and uncontested by us..... Really who are we as laypeople to question the pope's Authority over such matters anyway?

 

[Benedicta00]

It is not true. I wish it were and it must be nice for you to believe it, but it's not.

Let me put my view another way:

"Kids need a balanced diet of healthy foods, but right now we don't have enough fruits and vegetables available to go around. So therefore we will just not feed them at all for fear of giving them unhealthy food."

This is what all you who promote kids staying in the system instead of going to permanent placements are advocating. And now I really am unsubscribing.

You know what? You make it sound as if gay homes automatically are better than foster homes, or any other for that matter.

This premise only works if we do in fact know based on some infallible evidence that gay homes are better.


What guarantee do we have that a gay home will be better off than any other? We don’t. Look at the article, it’s gamble to place any child in any home these days.

The solution is not open the door to gays, they can be just as abusive as straight ppl.

I do know some lesbian couples who have their own natural children from artificial insemination. Their not bad parents at all, but like everybody else, they want their own, they don’t want to adopt and certainly not a problem child from the system.

I don’t see that allowing gay ppl to adopt will solve anything.

 

[Benedicta00]

Defending Catholic doctrine is good, but do we really believe it? If so, then our actions must follow our words. Do we believe that the foster care system is doing violence to children? then how many want to help by adopting or becoming foster parents ourselves? Are the children worth that, or do we just leave them to languish in foster limbo? Abandon them all, let God sort them out?

If enough Catholic heterosexual couples would volunteer to adopt or care for foster children, then there would be no need for gay adoption. Gay unions do not result in children, and the only children available to them are those that have been abused or abandoned by heterosexuals. If there were enough people helping, this should be a non-issue.

We are the salt of the earth, but what? have we lost our savor? Is there no call to action? What would we do for the children? If all we do is spout perfect Catholic doctrine, yet do nothing to help a child, it is as Paul taught, we have become nothing but clanging cymbals

God help us

I agree Jerome, but here's the gist, if it truly is all about the child then all a 'gay' person who wants to help has to do is not involved the child in their gay lifestyle.

It is that darn easy.

I do not have a problem with a gay person rearing a child but I do have a problem with a child being raise in a gay lifestyle.

So gay ppl should be able to help if they aren’t abusive, and if they really wanted t help, they would adapt their environment to what's best for the child.

 

[kimber1]

the thing is i'm not seeing that this is dogma hence my question. now here's a question. are we also saying that single parents can't adopt? how about atheist parents? are they unfit as well?

 

[GraceInHim]

I'm not sure what you and I are quarreling about, either. So let's just stop and have some ice cream. It is yummy and delicious!

my pics are not working.. ummmm I want vanilla

 

[WarriorAngel]

the thing is i'm not seeing that this is dogma hence my question. now here's a question. are we also saying that single parents can't adopt? how about atheist parents? are they unfit as well?

I am not familiar with everything they do, but will guess that they do not permit atheists to adopt either.

 

[D'Ann]

It fails when they become as if they are high and mighty.. the Catholic Charities helps the whole families, not just the kids..

I love Catholic Charities and I'm glad that they help whole families. Sometimes the whole family can be forgotten and not considered.

one thing that will be effected if this stays this way is the program called BirthRight which some pregnant woman keep their babies to give for adoption. Most keep their babies and Catholic Charities helps out with all sorts of things the Parents/Mother will need.. but just the few who want to have the baby adopted.. only in Mass.. most of the woman I help are in Mass.. so pray this bill gets passed and the Church can stop the halt..

My prayers are in agreement with your prayers for the bill to become law.

I fully support young mothers/families who need help.

God bless,

Debbie

 

[Benedicta00]

the thing is i'm not seeing that this is dogma hence my question. now here's a question. are we also saying that single parents can't adopt? how about atheist parents? are they unfit as well?

It’s is a matter that requires you assent even if you personally disagree. It really don’t have to be dogma for you to be required to assent.

If you are a homosexual. That’s not a sin. Living the homosexual lifestyle is a sin. If the Church allowed gay couple adoptions, she would be condoning what she condemns. We can't use evil, to do good.

Could this be a disadvantage for a kid who was in a good gay home? Yes and no. Their needs may be met but they are being raised in a intrinsically wrong environment.

It’s a situation that doesn’t have a happy ending.

My opinion? Anti baby, anti kid world we live in. If parents cared for their own kids, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Kids shouldn't be in a foster system in the first place.

Mean people suck? No, original sin sucks. Human depravity causes us to do evil even when, to the naked eye, evil looks like good.

 

[kimber1]

*is that crickets i hear?*

 

[kimber1]

okay but isn't it dogma that cannot be strayed from? isn't the ex cathedra statements what cvan't be strayed from? are you saying we can't have our own opinion? i'm sorry but i know gay couplesd as well as atheist couples who would make superb parents and i doubt very seriously they would be committing any harm to the child, they'd be so gosh darn happy to be able to adopt.