I hope you will be able to find a few minutes to explain this statement.
Is America Magazine not a credible source because it is a Jesuit publication? Not a credible source because many of its writers have (allegedly) SSA? Some other reason?
I am corrected. It did not take me long at all. All you have to do is scroll to see what America Magazine promotes.
All of the Above : )
I have sympathy for individuals who struggle with SSA. What I do not agree with is normalizing sin nor celebrating a disorder (often caused by abuse). And the very fact that this celebration is referred to as PR!DE (which, in of itself, is a sin). I do not hate individuals with SSA, and I do not believe individuals with SSA should become Priests.
I guess you know more than the pope and his colleagues re homosexuals in clergy, and more than scientists who study this stuff.
And you know this…how? Who did the research finding that America magazine is not credible?
One thing I’ve found repeatedly in talking to people who allege media bias is that they find “media bias” when the media fail to agree with their thinking, which very often means media fail to criticize some individual or idea when writing about that individual or idea.
So I STILL want to know: HOW DO YOU KNOW? What is your basis for saying America magff is not credible?
I read 2 of the articles at a link you provided and did not find anything to suggest that America magazine is in any way advocating for homosexuality.
If there is so much advocacy of SSA in America Magazine articles it ought to be very easy for you to cite somethi9ng.
My experience in talking with people who think “biased media” is that almost all confuse objective writing about some idea or topic with advocacy.
Cade, I’ve asked you a few very reasonable questions about how you know these things you’ve posted about SSA priests, America magazine, and so on, and I have not seen any responses from you.
I’ve been engaging with believers for quite a while, asking reasonable questions about how they know things they claim to be facts, and I’ve found it very interesting that almost always, when i ask these questions, there is NO ANSWER–the people whgo;ve made those claims run away, rather than answer them.
Of course, that silence is dEAFENING.
I hope I’ll hear from you about how you know those things you claimed to know.
There are theological reasons, in addition to the psychological aspects, which I have private messaged you about. I can copy & paste it here as well if you would like me to.
Pope Francis is not a great theologian. He is more about his political views than he is with being the vicar of Christ. We have had bad Popes before and we will get through this one as well. Something you should know about Jesuits is that they focus mostly on the mercy of God and very little about what fallows, namely repentance, a turning away form sin/self and turning towards God. Many Jesuits today care less about truth and more about feelings, which is commonly a feminine trait. We need a Pope who speaks truth gently, not a Pope who only speaks gently (unless he is speaking out against his critics, also commonly a feminine trait ; )
Science is not apposed to Religion. They compliment one another. Science tries to understand how God created and Religion tries to understand why God created. And Atheism tries to explain how God has nothing to do with either, but not why any of it matters. Scientism is the perversion of Science, usually for political outcomes. “Trust the Science” is the mantra of individuals who practice Scientism. Another word for “trust” is to “have faith in.”
America Magazine is more about pushing a political agenda than it is about the the Catholic Faith. This discredits the Magazine. LifeSite News is the same, only from the opposite side of the political divide. I would not expect you to view them as a creditable source either.
As you know, I do not make my politics my religion.
Correct, we call this confirmation bias. Do you find America Magazine creditable, because they agree more with your political views? There is very few media sources these days who are objective. Most are funded by individuals or corporations who seek a certain political outcome.
Politics have perverted pretty much everything in our society. Sports, movies, music, theater, news, science, and religion (this includes atheism).
Sorry, I am rarely online on the weekends. I was watching my youngest do cheer-camp, and she won the “Most Spirit” award : ) I may or may not have watched the Diddy documentary on HBO/Max : ) I also celebrated Birthdays with my Mom’s side of the Family after Church. It was fun! We had a lot of laughs. It is always a good time when we get together with my Family.
I assure you, I am not “running away” from your questions. I run into the same problem when I interact with individuals. I ask them questions and they refuse to answer them. I feel like I have answered your questions here. Perhaps not how you would like me to answer them.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe America Magazine would be disappointed or celebrate if Pope Francis & Company declared “Gąy is okay,” in spite of what Sacred Scripture and what Sacred Tradition has to say about it (and I’m not talking about what those who twist Scripture for their own desires has to say about it)? Why do you believe this leading voice of the “Society of Jesus” would be disheartened or celebrating?
SSA is not a sin. But, celebrating SSA is. If a Catholic who has an attraction to alcohol and goes to the bar (or even in his own home) and engages in a behavior that is sinful, then embraces his disordered lifestyle and normalizes it, this is not good. If someone struggles with alcoholism, I don’t believe he should be a Priest. But, maybe God has a different plan. Some Christians believe that God is using Trump, who struggles with pride (obviously), among other things (and who also has some feminine traits of his own). I do not believe God actively willed Trump to be President and I do not believe individuals with SSA or struggle with alcoholism should be Priests. Maybe Pope Francis believes God wants individuals with SSA and alcoholics as Priests, but not Trump to be President, because his behavior is unacceptable ; )
My point is that in spite of what I believe is true, God’s ways are greater than mine (Isaiah 55:8). What benefit do I get out of wanting sin not to be normalized? I can think of a million reasons why I would desire sin to be normalized, but that would be unwise.
You still have not explained to me how you know things like the sexual proclivities of Jesuits (and other clergy), the bias or intent of the publishers of America magazine, and so on.
Did you learn these things from solid evidence obtained by some credible source?
Did you do extensive research on the material published in America?
Or do you “just know” these things?
(I am still learning how to use this site, so of course apologies for blunders.)
I know almost nothing about America Magazine, its editors, the SJ, etc., so I cannot say.
Of course, I am aware that the pope (?) recently decided (ruled, etc) that gay individuals could become priests, as long as they remained celibate, of course. I am unaware of the reasoning, though it does seem to me that in so many ways, a key thing for clergy is behavior, as well as belief.
How do I know what is a private message?
Since you state that pope Francis is not a great theologian, may I assume that you have some background in theology? Studied it, perhaps? And have read in detail the important messages he’s issued? ETC?
And anyway, he presumably has expert theologians to whom he can ask questions, since after all, no pope can be expected to be expert in all things, wouldn’t you say?
I dunno…I see lots of things going on all around us that could hardly be called “the mercy of god”…how to explain those?
When you click on your profile picture in the upper-right hand, if there is an envelope symbol next to the notification, then it is a private message. If it just has a curved arrow next to it, then it is are replay in a public thread.
No, because I have better things to do with my time (like watch Diddy documentaries on HBO/Max ; )
You’ve got me. I have no evidence of individuals like Fr. James Martin and Pope Francis (both Jesuits) claiming to have SSA.
So then, I assume you would have no objection to a scientific look at transsubstantiation?
Then it sure looks like you’re doing…umm, what’s it called…“bearing false witness”?
Why would you be thinking about some folks having SSA, with no solid evidence?
But I still don’t know why you are attributing things to America magazine without any decent evidence.
Well, actually, I do sorta know, because I’ve been dealing with this with lots of individuals over the years: it starts with a belief by the individual, and as we’ve discussed, confirmation bias adds to it.
People who claim media bias of one sort or another have rarely thought in any depth about their beliefs, and NEVER have tried to confirm or disconfirm them.
False witness? Sure looks like it to me.
First, you would have to understand what we mean by transubstantiation. My Presbyterian step-Dad once made two arguments against the Holy Eucharist (this was years ago).
His first argument was that if the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, you would run out of it. There would not be enough to go around. Yet, he believes that Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes. At the Church in which I was Baptized, there are two columns of symbols on each side of the Altar.
On the left side is a pelican with its chest sliced open and blood pouring out. Below this is the offspring receiving the blood for nourishment. Below this is an image of The Chalice.
On the right side is an image of the loaves. Below this is the image of the fishes. And below this is an image of the Eucharistic host.
My step-Dad’s second question was the same as yours. “If they tested the Eucharist for Jesus’ DNA, what would it show?”
We believe that the substance of the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. The accidents remain the same. All the physical properties of bread and wine remain, but what they are has been completely changed, perceptible to faith and understanding but not to the senses.
There have been reports of Eucharistic miracles throughout the world, which I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to many of these incidents, but you are free to look them up.
Rather I believe in the Eucharist, because Jesus said so and because if you look at the early Christian Church closes to the time of Christ, they too believed in the Eucharist. The further you get from the ancient Church (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christian Churches), the less Christians believe in the Eucharist. For instance, most Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, but they do not believe, “This is My body… This is My blood…” And most Protestants beyond the oldest of Protestant Churches believe Christ is not present in the Holy Communion, but merely symbolic of Christ’s Sacrifice, but not a re-presentation of Christ’s once and for all Sacrifice as Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe.
I once had a Protestant co-worker ask me why he can’t receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? I asked him why he wants to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. I mean, if you do not believe that it is the body and blood of Jesus, then wouldn’t you be committing blasphemy. And if he does believe the Eucharist is true, then why would he want to receive a counterfeit (presuming his Church celebrates a symbolic Communion). Some Protestant Churches only do Communion once a month. Others not at all (like the non-Denominational Church I attended in College).
So, if you want to become a Christian, and do not believe as the early Christians believed, then there is a Church out there that believes as you do. But, as G.K. Chesterton said, “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.”