The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I had a full post written but lost it.

First point - marienbad - I agree with you that Christians haven't always spoken in honourable terms. I can only speak for myself. I still think calling people hateful for not agreeing with people on sexuality or gender is shrill. The reality is that Bible believing Christians are going to hold to what the Bible preaches. Roman Catholics will hold to the magisterium. I disagree with the teaching of that church on gender. It is more complex and it needs to be thought through prayerfully with a Bible open. That's how Christians work. We don't just agree with stuff because the world works that way.

aloysius - I found your post hard to understand. Do you mean should churches change their views? Perhaps. But with a Bible open and prayerfully. Personally I would leave my church if they conducted same-sex marriages because the Bible holds to marriage between a man and a woman. I would also leave my church if the minister said premarital sex was OK. In fact if they persistently preached against the Bible on any issue I would have no choice but to leave.

I think on gender issues the church needs to prayerfully chew over what God says on the issue. I think the Catholic position is unconsidered and it doesn't take into account the nuances and complexities behind the issue.

Does that help?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

I still think calling people hateful for not agreeing with people on sexuality or gender is shrill.

Hang on now,
Its not simply a case of the catholic church not agreeing with gay people.
If they simply said "we don't accept gay people into our club" thats their decision, its their club they can set the rules.

They however use language like "unnatural", if I called you unnatural am I being civil and I preaching peace and acceptance and love? If I call all black people unnatural or call them lessor then white people am I being civil and nice to them?

No, I'd be using words of hate. To call somebody unnatural is to refer to them as being less then everything else that is natural in nature and that what they are and what they do goes against nature.

Calling a person or group unnatural is not a word of love and peace, this is a word of hatred and disgust.

Of course reality and nature shows us that the church is very wrong with such a viewpoint and that same sex pairs are very far from unnatural in nature.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's how Christians work. We don't just agree with stuff because the world works that way.

Thats evident,
But nobody has to use hateful language towards any group just for them being what they naturally are. They only need to not allow them into their club if they dislike them so much.

lazygal

Solodeogloria, do you still think teaching children about homosexuality is propaganda? Do you still oppose books such as King and King being available in schools?

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I had a full post written but lost it.

First point - marienbad - I agree with you that Christians haven't always spoken in honourable terms. I can only speak for myself. I still think calling people hateful for not agreeing with people on sexuality or gender is shrill. The reality is that Bible believing Christians are going to hold to what the Bible preaches. Roman Catholics will hold to the magisterum. I disagree with the teaching of that church on gender. It is more complex and it needs to be thought through prayerfully with a Bible open. That's how Christians work. We don't just agree with stuff because the world works that way.

aloysius - I found your post hard to understand. Do you mean should churches change their views? Perhaps. But with a Bible open and prayerfully. Personally I would leave my church if they conducted same-sex marriages because the Bible holds to marriage between a man and a woman. I would also leave my church if the minister said premarital sex was OK. In fact if they persistently preached against the Bible on any issue I would have no choice but to leave.

I think on gender issues the church needs to prayerfully chew over what God says on the issue. I think the Catholic position is unconsidered and it doesn't take into account the nuances and complexities behind the issue.

Does that help?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

More so the way the established (large main) Christian churches render unto man their various understanding of the bible, rather than what their God may have meant them to. I'm not sure where God changed his law on marriage after he gave it to his created people in pre-Christian days.

The bible (new book) has had so many interpretations, printings and editions made to suit personal tastes that that was inevitable. That may look strange coming from me but it looks similar to this clip from you above: Quote; Roman Catholics will hold to the magisterum. I disagree with the teaching of that church on gender. It is more complex and it needs to be thought through prayerfully with a Bible open. That's how Christians work. unquote.

One might say that that indicates you think RC Christians do NOT have a Christian understanding of gender through a lack of bible-reading or study, and may not be worried about them taking offence at any implication that they don't read or use the bible to understand God. Apparently, from quotes here, they do read posts here.

It all sounds like a lot of the differences between the churches is down to human interpretation of the bible, and you may find yourself moving due to such a personal difference. You might be beggared for choice though as it seem's to me most of the other Christian-ethos churches are of the born-again kind with more fire and brimstone beliefs than the mainstream Christian churches.

Personally I feel, though I know there are LGBT folk who still hold to your POV on marriage, that most LGBT folk here would NOT put any of the churches under constraint to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. That would be entirely against LGBT and/or libertarian values and argument, BUT that's just my opinion.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

This is my last post for today.

aloysius: I found your post interesting. I want to offer some thoughts.

Firstly - on my distinction between Bible believing Christians and Roman Catholics. The only difference I wanted to stress was that Reformed churches tend to regard the Bible as the ultimate authority and the Roman Catholic Church regards the Papal magisterium as the ultimate authority over everything including Biblical understanding. This article explains some things that could shed light on my thinking.

Secondly - I've not read any two Bible translations that have led me to a different understanding about sexuality from a Christian perspective. I'd love to be proven wrong and I'm willing to be. But it requires showing me a Biblical case for it. The reason why same-sex marriage and endorsing premarital sex are red lines are because the Bible seems rather clear on these issues. I'd treat any other endorsement of sin in the same way.

I'm not convinced that we've done enough thinking on gender. Prayerful consideration of what the Bible says is broadly speaking how Christians work these issues through. We're called to be countercultural when the Bible grates with the prevailing culture. That's not easy but the world says so is not an answer.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazygal

Calling yourself counter cultural seems to be the latest Christian claptrap. Doesn't fool anyone though. I've heard it from the most conservative talking heads, as though being Christian in a country already awash with Christians is something brave. I suppose people have to tell themselves these things.

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is my last post for today.

aloysius: I found your post interesting. I want to offer some thoughts.

Firstly - on my distinction between Bible believing Christians and Roman Catholics. The only difference I wanted to stress was that Reformed churches tend to regard the Bible as the ultimate authority and the Roman Catholic Church regards the Papal magisterum as the ultimate authority over everything including Biblical understanding. This article explains some things that could shed light on my thinking.

Secondly - I've not read any two Bible translations that have led me to a different understanding about sexuality from a Christian perspective. I'd love to be proven wrong and I'm willing to be. But it requires showing me a Biblical case for it. The reason why same-sex marriage and endorsing premarital sex are red lines are because the Bible seems rather clear on these issues. I'd treat any other endorsement of sin in the same way.

I'm not convinced that we've done enough thinking on gender. Prayerful consideration of what the Bible says is broadly speaking how Christians work these issues through. We're called to be countercultural when the Bible grates with the prevailing culture. That's not easy but the world says so is not an answer.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I assume Papal Magisterum translates into Papal infallibility. My understanding was that that referred to when the Pope told the RC faithful what he believed God meant on doctrinal matters and not the rest of the bible, given how it contain's writings, letters, epistles and sermons from early Christians, at times of the "according-to" variety.

Deleted original 2nd Para and inserted new one: Countercultural? That's a new one on me. You mean a good old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud?

Wouldn't surprise me if there are mutterings below stairs in the Vatican that Frank is a closet liberation-theolologist, seeing as he's from South America and a Jesuit.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I assume Papal Magisterum translates into Papal infallibility. My understanding was that that referred to when the Pope told the RC faithful what he believed God meant on doctrinal matters and not the rest of the bible, given how it contain's writings, letters, epistles and sermons from early Christians, at times of the "according-to" variety.

There's no such thing as Papal Magisterium, so, no, it doesn't. Papal infallibility isn't quite what you think either; it means the the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when, in the exercise of his office, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

aloyisious wrote: »

Deleted original 2nd Para and inserted new one: Countercultural? That's a new one on me. You mean a good old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud?

I think he actually means that when prevailing culture is at odds with what the Bible says, Christians are called to act in accordance with the Bible and counter to prevailing culture, bearing in mind the instruction "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Lazygal thinks such a notion is Christian claptrap, but it seems to me that as our culture becomes increasingly secular, Christians will increasingly be countercultural; it's more an observation of fact than any claim to superiority that previous countercultural movements might have made for themselves.

aloyisious wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me if there are mutterings below stairs in the Vatican that Frank is a closet liberation-theolologist, seeing as he's from South America and a Jesuit.

Given his moves towards reconciliation so far, I think it's fair to say his views are well out of the closet at this stage.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

This is what I'm referring to:

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to establish its own authentic teachings. That authority is vested uniquely by the pope and by the bishops, under the premise that they are in communion with the correct and true teachings of the faith.

Edit: aloysius - I think Christians actually are called to be stuck in the mud. We're called to be faithful to what God has said in His Word. God doesn't change and His Word is timeless.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is what I'm referring to:


Edit: aloysius - I think Christians actually are called to be stuck in the mud. We're called to be faithful to what God has said in His Word. God doesn't change and His Word is timeless.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

How exactly are you being counter cultural then?

Cabaal

This seems suitable for this thread since this guy is a christian

Liveline Podcast:
http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2016-08-18&rte_mt_prg_name=test-liveline&title=Preacher%20in%20Kilkenny&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0818%2F20160818_rteradio1-liveline-preacherin_c21039223_21039227_232_.mp3&r=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0818%2F20160818_rteradio1-liveline-preacherin_c21039223_21039227_232_.mp3

This guy believes being gay is a disease and can be cured through prayer, he also has some very weird views on women and its ok to beat the heck out of children.

Callers are fiercely divided about a controversial preacher who's due to speak in Kilkenny later this month. Angus Buchan has been banned from Scotland because of his views on homosexuality and the role of women in the home. The organiser of the event also talks to Joe.

The christian callers on Liveline believe that all of the above represents gods word and that his viewpoint on gay people is a message of love...

Despite the preacher stating previously that being gay is a disease both christian callers claim they never head him say that....well thats ok then I guess
:rolleyes:

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'd agree that rhetoric that refers to homosexuality as a disease is wrong. Moreover the Bible doesn't give us that language. On the other points I can't discuss them without indepth knowledge of what was said.

Having said that I don't think it is the job of secular society to police churches or any other place of worship. Part of being in a secular society means that church and state should be separated. This works both ways around.

I'm also a big advocate for freedom of speech and I think that laws in Europe tend to be too strong. The First Amendment in America is a good model based on the enlightenment view of discourse that seems to be abandoned in Europe.

People don't have the right not to be offended.

But yes, we do believe in a loving God who cares for us. He cares for us so much that he calls us out on our sin and calls us to repent rather than allowing us to stay in it and face judgement for it even though we deserve it. That's why He sent His only Son. When you understand that fully the scoffing tends to end because the only conclusion is to submit to Him as Lord.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Having said that I don't think it is the job of secular society to police churches or any other place of worship. Part of being in a secular society means that church and state should be separated. This works both ways around.

The place in Kilkenny is a place of worship?? You're kidding me right?
This preacher is looking to do a talk in The Hub in Kilkenny City, this is far from a place of worship (unless you worship cattle at the weekly cattle mart).

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Again it depends on the circumstances. If Kilkenny City Council invited him then I think that's inappropriate. I think his comments aren't what the Bible actually teaches on the issue.

That said if the room was rented by a church I think it's still a matter of freedom.

I'm really not into laws restricting speech. I'm also not into people policing opinions using law.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Timberrrrrrrr

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again it depends on the circumstances. If Kilkenny City Council invited him then I think that's inappropriate. I think his comments aren't what the Bible actually teaches on the issue.

That said if the room was rented by a church I think it's still a matter of freedom.

I'm really not into laws restricting speech. I'm also not into people policing opinions using law.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Would you be OK with an Islamic imam preaching to young lads to become martyrs by blowing up buses packed with innocent people?

aloyisious

I heard the JD show discussion on Thurs going to an RC wedding reception. I don't bother getting stressed anymore about the people who put their fingers in their ears & negative-shake their heads.

It's best to picket such a meeting with "ADAM & STEVE" placards & signs passively with songs like "We Shall Overcome" at a suitable volume, liberate their minds, drown out their negativity.

aloyisious

C of E acceptance of celibate committed homosexual relationship. C of E Bishop of Grantham, Nick Chamberlain, comes out as gay and as being in a long-term celibate relationship with his male partner. He was in the relationship when appointed bishop and the C of E were aware of that at the time.

Most Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said Mr Chamberlain's sexuality is "completely irrelevant". "I am and have been fully aware of Bishop Nick's long-term, committed relationship," he told the Guardian.

"His appointment as Bishop of Grantham was made on the basis of his skills and calling to serve the church in the diocese of Lincoln.

"He lives within the bishops' guidelines and his sexuality is completely irrelevant to his office."

A Church of England spokesman said: "The Church has said for some time that it would be unjust to exclude from consideration for the episcopate anyone seeking to live fully in conformity with the Church's teaching on sexual ethics or other areas of personal life and discipline.

"Whilst Bishop Nick's appointment is notable in the gifts and talents that he brings to the episcopate, it is wholly consistent and unexceptional in other regards given the testing of that call by those responsible for the selection process in each case."

Bishop Chamberlain spoke to the Guardian newspaper after an unnamed Sunday paper threatened to publish the story.

Report from Irish Examiner yesterday. I imagine this will be unacceptable to some other continental branches of the C of E.

Cabaal

This is certainly relevant to this forum, awful carry on by the person in question they should be utterly ashamed of themselves for pushing the two women out of the choir. He's a sorry excuse for a human being.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/08/different-him-sheet/

Interview https://soundcloud.com/kfmradiokildare/anthony-murphy-and-jacinta-oconnell-08092016

Earlier today:

Kildare FM reported that a gay couple, Jacinta O’Donnell and Geraldine Flanagan, have stepped down from the church choir at the Catholic parish church, St Michael’s, in Athy, Co. Kildare (top).

The station reported:

Jacinta O’Donnell and Geraldine Flanagan, who married in July, have stepped down from the church choir and other church music activities, due to what they say is the level of pressure placed upon them and the church by a local church activist Anthony Murphy [of newspaper Catholic Voice].

Mr Murphy is strongly opposed to gay people being active in the Catholic church in what he calls leadership roles.

Mr Murphy has also conveyed his views to parish priest Canon Frank McEvoy, whom the couple says has been supportive of them.

Kildare FM also reported that, a few days after Ms O’Donnell and Ms Flanagan got married, Mr Murphy sent Ms O’Donnell the following text:

Jacinta, I hope you will now have the decency to resign from the church choir and as a eucharistic minister, following the events of last Wednesday [their wedding day].

Further to this, in an interview with Shane Beatty, on Kildare FM, Jacinta O’Donnell told Mr Beatty:

“Well, we’ve been mulling over [the decision to leave] it all summer. When we were made aware of Anthony Murphy’s feelings and when we saw some of the very negative and, I suppose, hateful stuff really that was on his Facebook page, etc, and then when I got the personal text message from him.”

“Geraldine and I, you know, we, the only thing we’ve ever tried to do is provide a music ministry and the whole idea behind that was to enhance the eucharist and we felt that, bringing this trouble to the church door would be really futile and negate anything that we were trying to do.”

“So we thought about it long and hard and it was, and still is, a very difficult decision that we came to. We’re both very upset by it.”

“…we understood that there were going to be protests or some form of demonstrations, you know, to basically encourage us to leave, shall I say. And we felt that the ordinary people, that were just going along to their weekly mass, you know, didn’t need to be subjected to this.”

“And it was going to defeat the entire purpose of our whole reason to be there in the first place and I think we felt we had more respect for the house of God then to have that brought to its door or because of us and we felt that the easier thing to do would be just to walk away.”

Meanwhile, Mr Murphy told Mr Beatty:

“This is not about personalities. Well clearly, you know, the way the choir operates in Athy, Jacinta and Geraldine are positioned on the altar, in the sanctuary, you know, on a stage almost, sharing the stage with the parish priest.”

“You can not have a contradiction where the church teaches one thing and people who are right next to the tabernacle, the blessed sacrament, contradict all of that teaching.”

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Needless to say, I can't comment in full on that situation without full information on what happened. The sort of vigilante behaviour being described seems to be wrong.

However, I have heard of people in the past being told that they should step down from leadership positions in churches, or not being considered for leadership roles in churches because of unrepentant sin (not on this particular issue but on others). I think that is reasonable. If you are in a position of leadership in a church whether that is in running home group, Bible studies in the church, helping out with children's work, or any other ministry role where you are giving theological input into peoples lives then it is entirely reasonable that if you are refusing to submit to Christ in areas of your life then you shouldn't be leading others.

I think that's fair, but it is for the church council and the pastoral leadership team to make these decisions prayerfully and in a gracious manner, but these sorts of decisions need to be made. Internal church matters should be resolved within the church provided that the law of the land isn't broken.

Edit: As an aside, Having said that I am thankful for the massive work that people with same-sex attraction do in the church. I've been particularly inspired by this group of people who continue to live for Jesus despite their same-sex attraction. They see that Jesus and His gospel is more important. It's an encouragement for me as a single heterosexual guy to do the same thing. I've also been encouraged to see more and more that marriage isn't an answer that makes all of our problems go away. Good friendships are also key and important. The truth is that our friendships are too shallow, and it puts too much pressure on marriage, or on people to be married. Jesus and what He brings is far far better than any earthly relationship that we can be in now. Marriage (by God's definition) is great, but it is overblown to a huge extent in many Christian churches causing damage both to same-sex attracted people and other single people in our churches.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

This is certainly relevant to this forum, awful carry on by the person in question they should be utterly ashamed of themselves for pushing the two women out of the choir. He's a sorry excuse for a human being.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/08/different-him-sheet/

Interview https://soundcloud.com/kfmradiokildare/anthony-murphy-and-jacinta-oconnell-08092016

I can only wonder if Mr Murphy consulted with his PP before he used private phone and public media sources to make his views known on what seem's to be an internal church matter, seeing as it directly involves the church at parish level. I'd reckon any PP wouldn't like a parishioner causing a public split inside the parish he's responsible for and making decisions best left to the PP.

As for the paper-link with Mr Murphy, it might be worth reading the next few issues to see if he uses it to mention his actions and further inform the public of his views of other parishioners private lives. The paper is available at some RC church vestibules.

As mentioned by solodeogloria above, if the law of the land hasn't been broken (which seems the case with regard to the two women) then Mr Murphy may have blotted his own copy-book in regard to internal church, at parish level, matters.

@SDG, by using some of what you posted, I'm mindful of all of your post and NOT using it as a handy device to take a pop at you. I agree with you on handling internal matters internally. It remains to be seen if Mr Murphy is like-minded.

Nick Park

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Needless to say, I can't comment in full on that situation without full information on what happened. The sort of vigilante behaviour being described seems to be wrong.

However, I have heard of people in the past being told that they should step down from leadership positions in churches, or not being considered for leadership roles in churches because of unrepentant sin (not on this particular issue but on others). I think that is reasonable. If you are in a position of leadership in a church whether that is in running home group, Bible studies in the church, helping out with children's work, or any other ministry role where you are giving theological input into peoples lives then it is entirely reasonable that if you are refusing to submit to Christ in areas of your life then you shouldn't be leading others.

I think that's fair, but it is for the church council and the pastoral leadership team to make these decisions prayerfully and in a gracious manner, but these sorts of decisions need to be made. Internal church matters should be resolved within the church provided that the law of the land isn't broken.

Edit: As an aside, Having said that I am thankful for the massive work that people with same-sex attraction do in the church. I've been particularly inspired by this group of people who continue to live for Jesus despite their same-sex attraction. They see that Jesus and His gospel is more important. It's an encouragement for me as a single heterosexual guy to do the same thing. I've also been encouraged to see more and more that marriage isn't an answer that makes all of our problems go away. Good friendships are also key and important. The truth is that our friendships are too shallow, and it puts too much pressure on marriage, or on people to be married. Jesus and what He brings is far far better than any earthly relationship that we can be in now. Marriage (by God's definition) is great, but it is overblown to a huge extent in many Christian churches causing damage both to same-sex attracted people and other single people in our churches.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I agree that the whole approach on this thing, with Facebook posts etc, seems to be profoundly unChristian.

Having said that, it doesn't seem unreasonable that those who participate in a religious choir should adhere to the religion's faith and practices.

Should you be allowed to join the Salvation Army choir if you drink like a fish? Or sing in the Jewish choir at a synagogue if you are a pork butcher?

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

I can only wonder if Mr Murphy consulted with his PP before he used private phone and public media sources to make his views known on what seem's to be an internal church matter, seeing as it directly involves the church at parish level. I'd reckon any PP wouldn't like a parishioner causing a public split inside the parish he's responsible for and making decisions best left to the PP.

As for the paper-link with Mr Murphy, it might be worth reading the next few issues to see if he uses it to mention his actions and further inform the public of his views of other parishioners private lives. The paper is available at some RC church vestibules.

I hope you're not going to read the paper without making some contribution towards it?
It would appear that the man approached his PP about this before - one of links in the OP had a FB snapshot of the comment.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Needless to say, I can't comment in full on that situation without full information on what happened. The sort of vigilante behaviour being described seems to be wrong.

Nick Park wrote: »

I agree that the whole approach on this thing, with Facebook posts etc, seems to be profoundly unChristian.

I've read the Broadsheet article and saw the only FB post earlier linked and it is far from vigilante. The FB post reads "My parish priest sees nothing wrong with two lesbians - who have entered into a same sex "marriage" - running the Parish choir and acting as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, he was quite content to allow them to hand out invitations to their wedding in the church after choir practice! Is it any wonder the Church is in such crisis!" The post doesn't name the priest, the women or the location (FB incorrectly designates the area as Dublin) The post wasn't directed at the women but towards the priest. One of the women called his FB posts "hateful" but there was only one linked, so I don't know whether there was more.

So, we have married lesbians, directing the choir and choosing what hymns are sung at Mass and then distributing the body of Christ to the flock with the approval of the priest. One of these women said that they "didn't want to bring trouble to the Church door" (yet goes on local radio?) but has no problem in publicly disregarding an awful lot of what that Church holds and will do so from the side of the Altar. The PP has a lot to answer for too, just in case it seems like I'm only focusing on the women.

And tbh, I'm surprised at you two (NP +SDG).. you surely know that certain posters only show up in this forum to stir things up and post anything that they hope will reflect poorly on Christ and His people.

solodeogloria

lazybones32 wrote: »

And tbh, I'm surprised at you two (NP +SDG).. you surely know that certain posters only show up in this forum to stir things up and post anything that they hope will reflect poorly on Christ and His people.

Good morning!

As someone who has experienced and witnessed less than tactful engagement on pastoral issues in the past I am aware that these issues need to be handled with a great deal of grace and gentleness. Otherwise you risk hurting people unnecessarily. These women don't deserve that. They also don't deserve to be publicly shamed on the internet.

Jesus gives us a procedure to deal with pastoral issues internally in Matthew 18.

Matthew 18:15-23 ESV wrote:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

In my view if someone tries to exercise pastoral discipline in public then it is acceptable for the response to be issued in public.

For the record even if people are here to stir up the pot I'm thankful for them. We shouldn't be happy to go through a process of non-thinking. I'm thankful for the opportunity to be challenged by non-Christians.

As Christians - it's like the idiom that people use about ducks - if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck it probably is a duck. The same should apply for us as Christians - we need to walk and talk like Christians. For that's what the world needs.

We should be so immersed in what our gracious God has done for us that we should long for our daily actions to reflect who we are in Jesus. We should reflect our new status in the Lord Jesus in everything that we do. God's grace and mercy in Jesus should overflow from us.

That also includes pastoral discipline. If this guy was actually concerned about the welfare of these two women he would have taken it to them privately and spoken to them with love before the wedding to say that it isn't good for their soul and Jesus calls us to better things.

This guy doesn't seem to do this. It seems like he's put an irrational fear of profaning the altar above loving the two women and longing for them to abide in Jesus.

To ask another question. Is it only homosexuality that profanes the altar? Or are the sins that the rest of the choir commit doing the same thing?

I agree that there is a difference between repentant and unrepentant sin but none the less the question stands.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

I hope you're not going to read the paper without making some contribution towards it?
It would appear that the man approached his PP about this before - one of links in the OP had a FB snapshot of the comment.





I've read the Broadsheet article and saw the only FB post earlier linked and it is far from vigilante. The FB post reads "My parish priest sees nothing wrong with two lesbians - who have entered into a same sex "marriage" - running the Parish choir and acting as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, he was quite content to allow them to hand out invitations to their wedding in the church after choir practice! Is it any wonder the Church is in such crisis!" The post doesn't name the priest, the women or the location (FB incorrectly designates the area as Dublin) The post wasn't directed at the women but towards the priest. One of the women called his FB posts "hateful" but there was only one linked, so I don't know whether there was more.

So, we have married lesbians, directing the choir and choosing what hymns are sung at Mass and then distributing the body of Christ to the flock with the approval of the priest. One of these women said that they "didn't want to bring trouble to the Church door" (yet goes on local radio?) but has no problem in publicly disregarding an awful lot of what that Church holds and will do so from the side of the Altar. The PP has a lot to answer for too, just in case it seems like I'm only focusing on the women.

And tbh, I'm surprised at you two (NP +SDG).. you surely know that certain posters only show up in this forum to stir things up and post anything that they hope will reflect poorly on Christ and His people.

From your understanding of the situation caused by Mr Murphy's dis-satisfaction with his PP's response to his personal feelings on the involvement of the married lesbian couple in parish church activities, do you think it possible that in all Mr Murphy's actions with regard to the women involved when he made his decision to make his objections public, he completely forgot about them and that their presence in parish and direct church activities was the initial cause of his upset?

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

From your understanding of the situation caused by Mr Murphy's dis-satisfaction with his PP's response to his personal feelings on the involvement of the married lesbian couple in parish church activities, do you think it possible that in all Mr Murphy's actions with regard to the women involved when he made his decision to make his objections public, he completely forgot about them and that their presence in parish and direct church activities was the initial cause of his upset?

It's a very limited understanding of the situation, based on the Broadsheet.ie story (I'm not spending 15mins listening to the podcast), so don't look to me for info beyond an interpretation.


He didn't publicize any names or personal info and it doesn't appear that he has a problem with them being involved in the parish activities* but that he has a problem with people whose lives are openly inconsistent with Church teaching, openly holding positions of leadership in the same Church, with the apparent approval of the local priest. He made no derogatory comment about the women or the priest or homosexuals or choirs (not that I've seen anyway).

If a complaint was put to the PP because a known serial-cheater or a wife-beater or pro-abortion activist or (insert any of many examples here) isn't suitable for directing the choir and ministering holy communion, this wouldn't be an issue. If he just wants them out because they are gay, he's found a legitimate reason to hide behind.


* the text to the woman did ask her if she was leaving the choir, not just stepping down as director, so maybe he does want them to stop all activity...I can't say.

Timberrrrrrrr

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's a very limited understanding of the situation, based on the Broadsheet.ie story (I'm not spending 15mins listening to the podcast), so don't look to me for info beyond an interpretation.


He didn't publicize any names or personal info and it doesn't appear that he has a problem with them being involved in the parish activities* but that he has a problem with people whose lives are openly inconsistent with Church teaching, openly holding positions of leadership in the same Church, with the apparent approval of the local priest. He made no derogatory comment about the women or the priest or homosexuals or choirs (not that I've seen anyway).

If a complaint was put to the PP because a known serial-cheater or a wife-beater or pro-abortion activist or (insert any of many examples here) isn't suitable for directing the choir and ministering holy communion, this wouldn't be an issue. If he just wants them out because they are gay, he's found a legitimate reason to hide behind.


* the text to the woman did ask her if she was leaving the choir, not just stepping down as director, so maybe he does want them to stop all activity...I can't say.

Probably has an issue with many priest's so

lazybones32

solodeogloria wrote: »

They also don't deserve to be publicly shamed on the internet.

? They weren't named on the internet; the PP wasn't named and neither was the location of the Church named. I'm sure I've written this already. It has only come to public attention because - I assume - one of the women was willing to go on public radio.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Jesus gives us a procedure to deal with pastoral issues internally in Matthew 18.

And it would appear the man did just that - he contacted the woman personally; he went to the priest; and he described the situation (not the identities involved) on FB. Which order did he execute the process in? I don't know.

solodeogloria wrote: »

For the record even if people are here to stir up the pot I'm thankful for them. We shouldn't be happy to go through a process of non-thinking. I'm thankful for the opportunity to be challenged by non-Christians.

Speak for yourself... I think a lot.

There is a difference between an honest person who is critical of the Church and those who want to use every opportunity to mock and insult, to destroy and tear down.

solodeogloria wrote: »

We should be so immersed in what our gracious God has done for us that we should long for our daily actions to reflect who we are in Jesus. We should reflect our new status in the Lord Jesus in everything that we do.

How does openly contradicting the precepts of a Church, from the top of that church, reflect who we are in Jesus? What had He to say about hypocrites?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This guy doesn't seem to do this. It seems like he's put an irrational fear of profaning the altar above loving the two women and longing for them to abide in Jesus.

Have you ever read the OT and the strict measures put in place in order to keep holy certain places? God apparently wants the altar to be kept holy too! But surely we must disregard that now...

I don't know what love the man has in his heart but if his motivation is promoting respect for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, I won't fault the action.

solodeogloria wrote: »

To ask another question. Is it only homosexuality that profanes the altar? Or are the sins that the rest of the choir commit doing the same thing?

I'll offer my thoughts on a case-by-case basis. This topic deals exclusively with married homosexuals having roles and functions within the Church.

lazybones32

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Probably has an issue with many priest's so

And Carlsberg is probably the best beer in the world...

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

lazybones32 wrote: »

? They weren't named on the internet; the PP wasn't named and neither was the location of the Church named. I'm sure I've written this already. It has only come to public attention because - I assume - one of the women was willing to go on public radio.

And it would appear the man did just that - he contacted the woman personally; he went to the priest; and he described the situation (not the identities involved) on FB. Which order did he execute the process in? I don't know.

Facebook isn't a private medium. It's opening criticism about a priest and two particular people outside of the church to many people.

Jesus gives us a mechanism for dealing with these issues and always it is out of concern for those who are refusing to follow Jesus in particular areas. Matthew 18 gives us three steps. None of them happen outside of the church.

If pastoral discipline is given in public (Facebook is a public medium) then I think one has to accept that the reply may also come publicly.

The process matters. We need to follow our Lord on this.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Speak for yourself... I think a lot.

There is a difference between an honest person who is critical of the Church and those who want to use every opportunity to mock and insult, to destroy and tear down.

I didn't say that you didn't think. I'm simply asking you to respect the right of non-Christians to bring points to us. It is for our good rather than for detriment.

lazybones32 wrote: »

How does openly contradicting the precepts of a Church, from the top of that church, reflect who we are in Jesus? What had He to say about hypocrites?

I never said it was. I've argued that in certain circumstances that people need to be asked to step down for their own good to encourage them to repent. What this man has done isn't for the interest of the two women involved but because of an absurd concern of the sanctuary. Our first concern should be that the two women keep following Jesus. God brings us together through His Son so that we can be a family and live together. I wouldn't groan about my sister on social media so why is this acceptable?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Have you ever read the OT and the strict measures put in place in order to keep holy certain places? God apparently wants the altar to be kept holy too! But surely we must disregard that now...

I don't know what love the man has in his heart but if his motivation is promoting respect for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, I won't fault the action.

None of the passages about the Tabernacle or the Temple refer to churches. We no longer need to go to the Temple because Jesus dwells with us and has given us direct access to the Father.

John 4:19-24 ESV wrote:

The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

We need to remember what side of the cross we're on when we're reading the Bible. We don't have the Temple. Jesus dwells among us. The curtain is torn in two. Jesus' sacrifice is fully sufficient once and for all. This firmly includes those who are attracted to the same sex. The good news for the Christian is if we turn and trust in Jesus our identities rest in Him rather than in our sexual orientation or anything else.

If the sacrament is more important than the rescue it points towards I suspect you're doing it wrong. The bread and the wine are taken in remembrance of Jesus and what He did.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'll offer my thoughts on a case-by-case basis. This topic deals exclusively with married homosexuals having roles and functions within the Church.

This is a cop out. It is a fair question. We need to be consistent. We need to answer it. If we can't it betrays that we're not doing this out of genuine godly concern but out of homophobia.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazybones32

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is a cop out. It is a fair question. We need to be consistent. We need to answer it. If we can't it betrays that we're not doing this out of genuine godly concern but out of homophobia.

A cop out my eye! The actual situation deals with two lesbians; if the situation was about a philandering husband, an active prostitute, a known thief; an IRA member etc; then their removal would be as warranted but the actual situation - this event we are talking about - centres around 2 married women. Must I denounce every other sin and hypothetical scenario first, in order to denounce this situation without being accused of homophobia or making it look like I'm not singling out the gheys? So, instead of me answering your potential scenarios I will deal with the issue directly at hand.