/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>751773

>A German cardinal on Friday provoked anger and controversy when he claimed the Catholic church was not responsible for sexual abuse by its clerics

So knowingly hiding, protecting and shuffling them around different churches is a blameless activity ?

We already know homosex is a sin and leads to bad behavior…

>>751775

>So knowingly hiding, protecting and shuffling them around different churches is a blameless activity ?

Done by other homosexuals

He's right tho.

>>751776

Who was tolerant enough to allow them into the Church in the first place?

Who was modernist enough to not automatically defrock the sodomites and keep them in the clergy?

The Catholic Church has noone to blame but themselves for this.

didn't the church allow faggot clergy in the church circa 1960s? Vat2?

Didn't the roman church recently have a little witch hunt against a priest who let his parishioners burn a LGBT flag outside his church?

>>751823

>didn't the church allow faggot clergy in the church circa 1960s? Vat2?

Idk about that but, if true, big mistake

>Didn't the roman church recently have a little witch hunt against a priest who let his parishioners burn a LGBT flag outside his church?

It's better not to provoce those who are possessed by demons. The church's mission is to heal.

>>751811

In defense of the church we only realised the fags we had once this scandals come to the surface. And that was too late.

Every seminar in the US was already controled by gays.

>>751823

>didn't the church allow faggot clergy in the church circa 1960s? Vat2?

It never stopped them tbh as far as I know. Faggotry wasn't even a widespread thing, only the scum of society were faggots and were seen as low as prostitutes. But fags didn't realise that the world would like them, meaning they would join the priesthood having faith in Christ.

>Didn't the roman church recently have a little witch hunt against a priest who let his parishioners burn a LGBT flag outside his church?

Roman Church =/= Bishop involved in scandals.

If you read story about that priest the Bishop was literally the head of the local mob. The guy was fearing for his life.

>>751823

>the church

Some clergy did, "The Church" has maintained and restated several times, Pope Francis has restated it at least twice I believe, that people with deeply seated homosexual tendencies are not to be permitted into seminary. The problem is in individual bishops or leaders who for various reasons, some well intentioned others not, are letting people slip through the cracks. It's taken decades for the ramifications to really come out and it will take decades before it can fully be healed, but reform is always slow. And it's especially slow nowadays because there is a shortage of prospective priests in many places, so some bishops are reluctant to clamp down harder on who is allowed into seminary for fear of having even less priests to work with.

>>751773

Although I like Brandmüller he's a bit wrong.

The church (not the Church) is also responsible for covering it up, but then again this was mostly done by the gays themselves.

Hmm…I guess he was right then.

>>751852

>the Catholic Church doesn't believe faggots are doomed for ever like Baptists do.

Who would have know like that we pray for their repentance?

>The Church has been letting them in since the 1960s. Thinking if they can be forced to be chaste it will change them. Instead of banning them or telling them they can't identify as a faggot the Church accepted them anyway. Several decades later now we have to deal with rapists and pedophiles

You can thank the first gay bishops who sneaked their way into the Church.

Its like saying the Church was responsable for the spread of arianism because Arians were bishops of the church as well.

You also forgot to quote this my friend

>Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

>>751854

And yet they are approved anyway because they "promise" to be chaste. Than when they break their promise they get shuffled around and not de-frocked.

Maybe if they were never allowed in the first place there wouldn't be such problems with the Roman Church.

God instituted Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17 for a good reason. Now the Romans have discarded that reason and look what fruits it has brought into this world.

>>751856

What the hell are you saying?

Do you think the church ever asked novices if they liked women or not?

>Now the Romans have discarded that reason and look what fruits it has brought into this world.

We still condemn faggotry wtf lad?

>>751867

>>just not enough to ban them from becoming clergy

They are as of now. The guys who runs the seminars are to pay attention to any suspicious behaviour that might indicate the dude is a faggot.

>>just not enough to to remind people like Jesuit related to condem them

>just not enough to de-frock them when they sodomize people

>just not enough to stop catholic bishops from encouraging sodomites to ""have an active role in the Christian community"

When the dudes in high places are faggots as well I don't see how can that be made other then wait for them to be dead

It's kind of interesting how stalwartly traditional Catholics were even at the turn of the 20th century. I was perusing Haydock's commentaries, and it was funny how he even called the Protestants of the 19th century "modernists" (which they were). These very scholars are seen as conservative now though.. but it shows just oldschool traditional Catholic teaching was. They even viewed Calvin and Luther in a similar light, and slammed on this streak of individualism in Trent.

Once Catholics dropped their guard, they became even more faggy and modernist than the Protestant counterparts they had railed against for centuries. I'm coming from an Orthodox perspective, but it saddens me to see.

Hopefully that isn't too far off topic. It just reminded me of what I was reading earlier. Really put the era of V2 in perspective.

>>751874

You aren't wrong lad.

t. Catholic

>>751884

I know it's sad. But if the pope tried to excommunicate the faggot the one would would carry on the sentence would be a faggot as well and wouldn't do it.

Either the pope calls to his side guys like Burke or Sarah and goes full medieval inquisitor mode or nothing remains to us than to wait, that is implying that if the pope did that he wouldn't die mysteriously next day.

>>751871

>The guys who runs the seminars are to pay attention to any suspicious behaviour that might indicate the dude is a faggot.

Wait, what should they look for?

I mean, someone who's very flamboyant is a dead ringer, but the most common sign someone is gay is not being interested in women.

Which, given this is an RC seminary, is…yeah.

>>751773

Absolutely debatable, but still absolutely wrong

>>751927

Why? Celibacy worked fine for centuries. Only the modern world tries to destroy it.

Besides implying faggots like women.

They rape young boys not young girls. Be aus eif they did rape girls then yeah I'd agree.

Besides Eastern catholic priests can marry.