HEY! Please stop scrolling and listen. This is not what you are thinking, please read this till the end, even if you believe in this things or not, please.
Today in the Church the father said: “For those who are against gay couples adopting kids, think about it in this way; maybe, God created gay people to adopt and love those kids who were abandoned by those heterosexual parents who can’t give them the life they deserve or won’t give them the love they need. Everyone is in this world with a purpose made by God, so I just can’t believe in those people who claim that God will send gay people to hell. No, that’s not right. Every person who does good in this life deserve to go to heaven when the time comes, no matter your skin color, your nationality or your sexuality. Gay brother, lesbian sister, trans cousin, straight son… God loves you no matter what so please, live your life the way you want, be happy and strong but, please, please be a good person…”
After that, the Church were filled with an uncomfortable silence, and then, at the bottom of the church, a straight couple of elders stood up and started to applause, and then I stood up, and then the majority of the audience started to applause by what the father said.
I, as a straight-cis-girl, felt so happy and proud. You don’t know how painful is for me to hear in the Church community over and over again how “sinful” LGBT people is, or how much they “deserve to die” when it’s not like that. They are just humans just like me and you, who deserve to have our same rights, the freedom of love whoever they want. Hating someone just becase they are different from you is NEVER okay. Everyone deserves respect so please, be respectful as much as you can. You don’t know how much your words can hurt the others.
I don’t care if nobody read this, I don’t care what people have to say about me. I support you. I don’t care who you are or who you love; if you are a good person you deserve the best of this world. Please be happy and strong. Being gay, or lesbian, or bisexual or the fuck you are IS NOT sinful. If you believe in God please remember that God loves you and you are free to marry whoever you want, as long as you love them the way they love you.
Okay, keep scrolling. Thank you for your time and I’m sorry for my bad english. Just for your interest, this happened in a Latin Country :). (I don’t want hate so I won’t say where I’m living, sorry :c).
it’s ridiculous to me that the pope would be hailed as a progressive ally when he’s the number one reason italy barely has fucking civil unions for gay couples. the catholic church was the number one opposer of abortion laws AND divorce laws not thirty years ago. the catholic church as an institution will never be progressive because they are literally built on fear mongering and a parasitic relationship with the italian goverment so fuck them
Edward Warren Miney
(September 7, 1926 – August 23, 2006) and Lorraine Rita Warren (born January 31, 1927)
were a married Roman Catholic couple who were highly controversial American paranormal investigators and authors associated with prominent cases of hauntings. Edward was a World War II United States Navy veteran and former police officer who became a self-taught and self-professed demonologist, author, and lecturer. Lorraine professes to be clairvoyant and a light trance medium who worked closely with her husband.
In 1952, the Warrens founded the New England Society for Psychic Research, the oldest ghost hunting group in New England. They authored numerous books about the paranormal and about their private investigations into various reports of paranormal activity. They claimed to have investigated over 10,000 cases during their career. The Warrens were among the very first investigators in the controversial Amityville haunting. According to the Warrens, the N.E.S.P.R. utilizes a variety of individuals, including medical doctors, researchers, police officers, nurses, college students, and members of the clergy in its investigations.
Stories of ghost hauntings popularized by the Warrens have been adapted as, or have indirectly inspired, dozens of films, television series and documentaries, including 17 films in the Amityville Horror series alone. Other adaptations include the 2013 movie The Conjuring, its prequel/spinoff from 2014, Annabelle, and its sequel, The Conjuring 2, released in 2016.
The historical Xenophobia against the Irish and Italian peoples in the United States stemmed from almost exclusively sectarianism, specifically anti-Catholic sentiment that singled out the Pope and the prospect of high-ranking papists as a threat to American sovereignty.
With the exception of Maryland, the Thirteen Colonies were all founded by Protestants for Protestants, some were Puritans (MA, CT, RI), others Quakers (PA, DE) Calvanists, (NY, NJ) or Anglicans (VA, NC, SC, GA, NH), but nevertheless, all were Protestants. Oh and Maryland, though nominally a Catholic colony, was populated by mostly Protestant commoners and a couple Catholic nobles.
There was a time when anti-Catholic sentiment had its own party, which called itself the American party and once boasted former President Millard Fillmore on their ticket in 1856 on their ticket (he came in 3rd, making him the Johnson/Perot/Nader of 1856) and when the KKK was originally founded, it hated Catholics as well as PoC. Remember that news story were Donald Trump’s dad was arrested in the 20s for being part of a mob attacking cops? Those cops were Catholic.
Really the whole Protestant/Catholic divide didn’t end until the 1970s when the Evangelical Protestants joined the Catholics in their anti-abortion efforts, and even growing up in the South today I noticed there was this pervasive microaggresion where a Protestant will refer to “Christians and Catholics” rather than simply “Christians”
So if anyone tells you that anti-Irish or anti-Italianism was the Irish/Italians being considered non-white, please smack them upside the head with the King James Version of the Holy Bible and direct them to the Wikipedia page on the Thirty Years War.
What is your opinion of the Society of St. Pius X and Catholic Traditionalism as a whole?
I have a love-hate relationship with Catholic Traditionalism. What are some of the things I love? First, traditional Catholicism (TC for short) encourages, holds up, and defends the marriage of a man and a woman and their call to be fruitful and multiply.
The traditional Catholic married couples I know love each other, and they love children. They unapologetically have large families. I grew up in a family of six kids, and many TC families are larger. TC parents tend to see their kids as the greatest blessing God could have sent, as if each child is an angel that came down from heaven. They work hard to look after their families in many respects.
The TC movement also has strongly encouraged love for the priesthood and religious life. Because they have larger families, they not only do not discourage a religious vocation among their children, but pray for this. They consider themselves singularly blessed when a son goes off to the seminary, or a daughter to the convent.
They encourage their kids to serve the Church with piety, obedience, reverence, and loyalty. The result is that many holy priests and nuns have come from traditional Catholic families, where they were schooled well in prayer, confession, penance, works of charity, and carrying the Cross/sacrificing for God and country.
Traditional Catholicism is unique in its fierce defense of the prerogatives of the Catholic Church to spread the reign of Christ the King, in society and in their communities. Unlike most modern Catholics, they do not yell “separation of Church and State” whenever a public law is being debated which will encourage looser morals or the living out of the public vices.
They believe that the Church must actively enter the public square and make Christ the King respected and looked up to in His evangelical teachings of justice for all. They will staunchly condemn and resist any political party platforms which promote abortion choice, unnatural marriage, divorce, blasphemy in media and art, and unjust war.
Economically, they encourage our laws to promote hard work and personal initiative, with as little dependence on others as needed. Their outlook toward public tranquility is the defense of the widow, the orphan, the vulnerable, and the strong rule of law to subdue criminality and heinous crime.
Some people call traditional Catholics “Catholic rednecks.” I just believe they are following what they believe to be old-fashioned Catholic values regarding public decency and virtue.
Now, what I hate about traditional Catholicism is a tendency toward self-righteousness and Pharisaical wrangling over the letter of the law. In the case of the Society of St. Pius X, I find that there seems to be a return to Jansenism, condemned in the 17th century as a severe outlook and pessimism regarding human nature and God’s grace.
This Jansenism sees God as severe. His grace is very restrictive—only for the chosen few. His wrath and justice toward those who have failed to join the true Catholic Church, and strictly live by her laws, will be manifest by sending most people to hell.
As a result of the shades of this renewed Jansenism, non-Christians are seen in the SSPX as being in danger of going to hell, no matter how good they are or sincere in their faith. The Jewish people are seen as either Christ-killers or the accursed children of a Covenant that God has completely rejected and repented of. Protestants are loathed also, because among many SSPX, they are seen as aware of Catholic truth and have yet still refused to embrace it—thus, sealing their fate to most likely burn in hell.
The SSPX has no respect for the Catholic sense of confronting modernity. Throughout history, the Catholic Church could be called the inventor of the Marine Corps motto of “Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome.” But TC as espoused by the SSPX seems more comfortable to sound the retreat, to gather in small chapels with prayers in hushed Latin, and to have little mixing with the great numbers of the damned and unwashed who are outside of the confines of the Church.
When Vatican II Council convened in 1962, it was with a view to adaptation of the Church’s methods of conversion, or with a view to incorporating new knowledge of the sciences and of the philosophies of contemporary thinkers. While the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, and Renaissance, both in philosophy and theology, was allowed to undergo various transformations and growths based on advancing knowledge, the SSPX felt that Vatican II should have merely repeated the past formulas of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.
The improvisations of the Church after Vatican II are thus seen as a laughable and disgusting experiment in compromise by the SSPX. They consider the worship in vernacular, the movement to reach out to and have dialogue with non-Catholics, and the encouragement of shared power among the clergy and laity as an overthrow of Catholic Order.
There are numerous doctrinal disputes between Rome and the Society. But even more fundamental than resolving those disputes is overcoming a certain fear, and trembling, and loathing, in the Society, of all things that originate in the world and in modern thinking. Rome knows that countless errors were committed in the last 50 years, in the latest attempt to improvise, adapt, and overcome.
But there is, in the post-Vatican II era of the Church, among faithful and stalwart Catholics, especially with Pope Francis, an indomitable and unconquered spirit of “let’s go back to the drawing board, and try, and try again.” We cannot run away from the world and pretend that the world will return to the 16th century, when we waged wars against Protestantism with the help of Christian kings and princes who ruled with divine right and coerced dissidents and strays back into the fold of the True Catholic Church.
Our modern world has freedoms and a sense of personal rights that is, what it is. Insofar as the SSPX fail to, and refuse to, understand and deal with the modern world as it is, it will always be a Catholicism of the remnant who may be holy and faithful in their tiny chapels, but who make little difference for the great majority of people who are still searching to find God and the pearls of the wisdom of Catholicism. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel
The daughter of Henry IV of France and his second wife, Marie de Medici, Henrietta Maria was born at the Palais du Louvre, on 25th November, 1609.
The child was of decidedly mixed European ancestry, her father, the good humoured and compassionate Henry IV, was the son of the French Antoine de Bourbon, Duc de Vendôme and Jeanne III, Queen of Navarre, who was half French and half Spanish. Henrietta Maria’s mother, Marie d’ Medici contributed both dark Italian and Austrian Habsburg characteristics to the gene pool of the French royal house, she was the daughter of Francesco I de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany and of Johanna, Archduchess of Austria, who was herself the granddaughter of Phillip I and Joanna ‘the Mad’ of Castille.
Henry IV and Marie de Medici produced six children of which Henrietta Maria was the youngest. Her siblings included King Louis XIII of France, Elisabeth, who became the consort of Phillip IV of Spain, Christine Marie, who became Duchess of Savoy, Nicholas Henri, Duke of Orléans and the wayward Gaston Jean-Baptiste, Duke of Orleans.
King Henry IV, although a popular King of France, was assassinated in Paris by a fanatic Catholic, before the infant Henrietta Maria was but a year old. Her mother was banished from the French court by her brother the new king in 1617. She was brought up a strict Roman Catholic and grew into a thin, adolescent with protruding teeth. A contemporary, Sophia of Hanover, the daughter of Elizabeth of Bohemia provides an unflattering description of Henrietta Maria as “a short woman perched on her chair, with long bony arms, irregular shoulders and teeth protruding from her mouth like a fence” but in a kinder vein, she added that she possessed “beautiful eyes, a well shaped nosed and an admirable complexion”.
With the aid of a special dispensation from the Pope, a marriage was arranged with the new English sovereign, King Charles I, Louis XIII consented to the match on the condition that some measure of toleration would be afforded to Roman Catholics in England. The couple were married by proxy on 11th May 1625. They were married in person at St. Augustine’s Church, Canterbury, Kent, on 13th June 1625. Henrietta was at the time 15 years old and Charles 24, the arch-Catholic Henrietta Maria was to prove an unpopular choice of bride amongst Charles’ Protestant subjects. The new Queen of England and Scotland was not crowned beside her husband at Westminster Abbey, since her rigid Catholicism would not allow her to swear the necessary Anglican oath required in the ceremony.
The relationship did not get off to a particularly good start, Charles found his wife frigid and when he eventually sent her accompanying expensive Roman Catholic retinue home to France, the Queen felt homesick and neglected. The attentions her husband were reserved for his favourite, the Duke of Buckingham and frequent arguments between the couple resulted. On the assassination of Buckingham in 1628, Charles transferred his affections to his wife, after which their relationship grew far stronger and they were to become devoted to each other.
The children of Charles IThe first child of the marriage, Charles James, Duke of Cornwall, was born prematurely and died the same day in March, 1629, but was replaced by a much larger and healthier brother, Charles, (the future Charles II) born on 29 May 1630. The Queen’s brother and mother, Louis XIII of France and Marie de Medici, stood as godparents to the new Prince of Wales. The couple were to eventually produce a large family of nine children.
The Queen did much to encourage her unpopularity amongst the country’s majority Protestant element by meddling in affairs of state. When rumours reached the King’s ears that Parliament intended to impeach his Queen, he was spurred into action. Led on by the outraged Queen, he went to the House of Commons on 4th January, 1642, to arrest the five members who were perceived to be the most troublesome on charges of high treason, to find on his arrival that they had been forewarned and had fled.
As Civil War with Parliament war became inevitable, the Queen did much to aid her husband’s cause and was active in seeking funds and support for the Royalist cause, she was on the continent at the outbreak of the war in 1642 but returned to England in early 1643. Landing at Bridlington in Yorkshire with men and arms, she established her base at York until meeting up with her husband at Oxford some months later.
The collapse of the Royalist cause led the Queen to flee to her native France in 1644, where she received a pension from the French court and lived with her youngest daughter Henrietta Anne . Following the end of the war, King Charles I was put on trial at Westminster Hall and executed at Whitehall in January, 1649. It is reported that on receipt of the ominous news, Henrietta Maria stood “deaf and insensible” for a whole hour’s duration, before regaining her senses. She was said to have never totally recovered from the shock of her husband’s execution and dressed in black mourning for him for the rest of her life.
The monarchy was then abolished and England became a republic. During their exile in France, a rift developed between Henrietta Maria and her eldest son, Charles, now head of the family, when she attempted to convert her youngest son, Henry, to Catholicism. Henry, however, remained steadfast in his Protestantism. She later helped with the upbringing of her grandson, James Crofts, Duke of Monmouth, Charles’ illegitimate son by Lucy Walters.
Following the Restoration, Henritta Maria returned to England, where she lived at Somerset House in London. Parliament granted the Dowager Queen £30,000 a year in compensation for the loss of her personal estates and Charles II paid an additional annuity from his own resources. She was at this time described by the diarist Samuel Pepys as “ A very little , plain old woman”. She was reported to be livid when her second son, James, Duke of York, married Anne Hyde, the daughter of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, Charles I’s Lord Chancellor, she considered her son had married far beneath him. She returned to France to be present at the wedding of her youngest daughter, Henriette Anne, who was married to her foppish first cousin, Phillip, Duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis XIV, which took place on March 31, 1661. Both parties to the marriage were grandchildren of Henry IV of France and Marie de’ Medici.
In 1665, in failing health, she returned permanently to France where she founded a convent at Chaillot. Henrietta Maria died on 10th September 1669 at Château de Colombes, and lies buried in the royal tombs at the Cathedral of Saint Denis near Paris. Her heart was interred separately at Chaillot in a silver casket.
In a dramatic shift in tone, a Vatican document said on Monday that homosexuals had “gifts and qualities to offer” and asked if Catholicism could accept gays and recognize positive aspects of same-sex couples. The document, prepared after a week of discussions at an assembly of 200 bishops on the family, said the Church should challenge itself to find “a fraternal space” for homosexuals without compromising Catholic doctrine on family and matrimony.
From Father Angel: Following is part of a concern written to me by a person who has questions about the Catholic Church and gay marriage. And at the heart of the concern is wondering whether or not the Catholic Church is just too stubborn? Is it possible that Catholic teaching about gay marriage should just move on, evolve, and change with the times? And if it does not change, will the Church lose those members who are gay and are not feeling affirmed by the Church?
Anon: I do believe
I have a vocation. I also long to get married and have a family (with a gay
partner). However, I don’t want to (become a Catholic priest and) rush to seal
away my fate being single forever you know ? I do believe firmly that I’m VERY
blessed to live in an age that, finally, after well over two thousand years, we
have finally accepted homosexuality and gay relationships.
Fr. Angel responds: There have always been gay relationships, as in
gay friends. And in the Catholic community through the years, there has been
knowledge of these relationships. They were accepted up to a point where they
were not explicitly labeled “homosexual” but were called “spiritual friendships”
or “chaste friendships” because they focused on love, not sex.
But what you are talking about, what you actually mean is when gay people get
together and have sex, either anal, oral, or using some other way to masturbate
each other. Okay, that is fine, but let’s just call it what it is—an acceptance
of gay sex. Of course, in modern
society, there is an overall insistence on the person’s right to “choice,” or “reproductive
freedom” or “responsible, safe sex” without any regard to whether it is moral
or ethical conduct.
So, what you are asking of the Catholic Church community is
not merely to accept gay friendships that are close, chaste, and committed, but
to accept it when gay people get together and have sex. You are asking the
Church to accept mores and conduct, approved from a purely secular viewpoint of
individual rights, and absorb that into a Christian theology of the body. That is
a very tall order.
By the way, just to be clear, although you euphemistically
used the term “gay relationships”, we should clarify that this is not the same
thing as gay love. There are plenty of gay
people who have very deep relationships of love, but without having sex with
each other. On the other hand, there are gay people who have lots of sex
with multiple partners, or casual partners, and are happy with that, but are
not doing it out of “love” in the sense of a long term commitment of sacrifice
Coming from the New Testament theology of Jesus, who only
spoke of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and coming from a
Catholic interpretation of St. Paul, who insists on the purity of the body as a
temple of the Holy Spirit, I can see no reconciliation between what you are
asking, and what is the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. It is not just
because the Catholic Church respects Natural Law philosophy, as a framework for
asking whether something is authentic human nature and therefore whether it is
healthy and good for us. It is because the canon of Scripture as formulated in
Church Councils does not allow for this new thinking about gay sex, without a
huge evolution in nouveau exegesis.
Catholic exegetes do at times go through Greek this and
Greek that, through convoluted cultural situations in 1st century
Palestine and the Roman Empire, to come up with new interpretations which see
the Bible as neutral on the question of gay sex. However, the vast majority of respected
Catholic scholars, exegetes and theologians don’t buy it. And when they look at
the view of gay sex, as developed in the primitive Christian communities, they
see no acceptance of gay sex. Then, when they look at the writings of ancient
Fathers, they see even more explicit and clear condemnation of gay sex with the
use of “abomination” language to boot.
Bottom line, I don’t see how Catholicism could accept gay
sex, and gay marriage, without totally alienating those in the Catholic Church
who stand by the classic interpretations of Scripture and Tradition on this
question. Even more so, in an age when Catholicism is trying to dialogue more
intensely with the hundreds of millions of Christians of the ancient churches
of Eastern Orthodoxy, the reversal or turnabout of two millennia of faith and
Tradition would doom forever any hope of reunion with the ancient churches of
don’t want to throw the possibility of me having a relationship, marriage and
family away, because what if that ends up being my vocation? In short, I don’t
think I should have to choose and I don’t think while these inclinations are
naturally objectively dis-ordered, that they are sinful when performed out of
love like a regular straight couple.
“Out of love like a regular straight couple” is another
phrase which is used often in the Catholic gay community. But let’s clarify
that the vast majority of gay couples do not want to abide by the same moral
teachings as a “regular straight couple” in the Catholic community.
This is the difficulty of using phrases like “performed out
of love.” It sounds nice. Actually, it sounds great. In our regular marriage
preparation, we tell straight couples that it is not enough to perform out of
love, but that the Church opposes divorce, contraception, and the unions
entered into by people who have not grown sufficiently in maturity and responsibility.
And yet, my impression in these debates is that many Catholic gay couples believe that they
should have a special category, or special rules to follow, when it comes to
their way of performing out of love.
The vast majority of gay couples do not want to be married.
Even the vast majority of Catholic gay couples do not want to be married. If
they do get married, they do not want to be told that they have to remain with
that partner for life. Even though straight couples have high rates of divorce,
there are even much higher rates of split up among gay couples. Furthermore,
most gay couples do not wish to have children, nor do they see children as
having an essential connection to marriage. For most of them, marriage is a
bond of love, period. They don’t necessarily have to be faithful to that bond.
They don’t necessarily have to be committed to that bond. And that bond, for
the vast majority of gay couples, does not have to bring children along.
So, in the Catholic Church, there is, and there always has
been, a belief that a certain theology about sex has to be preached, if the
Church is going to be the Church and be faithful to the Church core identity as
Jesus established it. That means that yes, there is a firm belief in the
sinfulness of sex acts which are broken off from life time commitment, from
stable, mature commitments, and from the openness to life, is not a matter
preached for straight couples, while gay couples get a pass.
Thus, I don’t know how a Christian tries to reconcile gay
sex, or heterosexual sex outside of marriage, with the convictions of the New
Testament and with the convictions of the early Church.
In fact, people in the early Church grew up in a Greek and
Roman world where there were plenty of orgies and unrestricted sex between
couples who had no intention to be together for life, to be faithful to each
other, or to have children. The testimony of the early Christians, when they
talk about sex, is that such behavior or mores are what they left behind when
they became Christian—not what they wanted to embrace in their new life after
To say that a person has a “vocation” or a calling to gay marriage, or to have gay
sex, goes against the Church’s conviction that God is not pleased with gay sex
or with having gay sex within gay marriage. Yes, I have heard from people that
Catholic theologians can now see a possibility of accepting gay sex when it is
a case of a gay couple who are committed for life and open to fruitfulness, by
way of adoption or artificial means of conception and impregnation. The
thinking is that while the Church should see wanton hookups as wrong, there is
a place for welcoming loving same sex couples who strive to have a Christian
That would require Catholicism to completely invent itself
into a new religion. It would require a completely new moral theology which
simply dismisses or ignores the fact that only a miniscule number of gay couples
want to get married and have a family to begin with (and therefore, why are we
inventing a new theology of marriage when it does nothing to serve most of the
gay community anyway?). It would also require the Church to dismiss and erase
the confession of millions of Catholics, among them the great saints, who
adhered to the traditional Faith and the traditional teaching about the
sinfulness of sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
There are Christian communities who have reinvented
themselves and invented a whole new theology to go along with their acceptance
of gay sex. But my challenge, and my question is, why would I belong to a
church that can say that the truth of yesterday is a falsehood today? Why would
I join a church or religion where the teachings are not connected to the
revelation and truth of God, which is unchanging, in order to cater to me,
pander to me, and give me the name “Christian” with little of the
responsibility that goes with that name? What else will that new religion say
to please people? Tomorrow maybe they will be pro-abortion. The day after,
maybe they will side with the government to eliminate conscience protection. Or
maybe people will see through the moral relativism of such a church, and it
will just eventually die off and not be an effective force for building the
Kingdom of God?
Also beagmactire and anexpansionlikegold because they are wonderful even though I can never figure out their religions beyond that there is lots of blood and darkness and glitter. EDIT: Beag is an Irish polytheist, Nat is a nightmare worker.