Saint Thomas Aquinas

Thursday, February 10, 2011

More Protestants Fold on Homosexuality

It is no surprise that the Protestants as whole are going further and further off the deep end theologically. As time moves on their separation from the one true Catholic Church grows deeper. Now a group of 33 retired "bishops" from the Methodist sect are calling for homosexual "clergy".  One fact is proven from history. When you break from the Church in any formal doctrine or dogma, further consequences are sure to follow. There is no limit to how far off the heresies will go after you take that first arrogant step away from Christ and His Church. Once you step off the cliff, you are going all the way down. Think before you step away from the Church.

31 comments:

scotju said...

And when you reject God as creator, and embrace idolatry, that's when you start slouching toward Gommorah. Rom 1:18-32 makes that pretty clear. Certain Catholic bloggers who have publically embraced so-called 'theistic evolution' have better wise up, least they start down the slipperly slope to total unbelief.

Neil Parille said...

I don't think this is a very good argument against protestantism. The protestant reformers (and in this case Wesley) opposed homosexuality. So I don't find it any more significant than some catholic priest or bishop dissenting from church teaching.

And the catholic church has become pretty liberal on some issues. The current pope doesn't believe the opening chapters of Genesis are historical and one member of the PBC compared Gen. 1-11 to Little Red Riding Hood.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I find it interesting that the founding "reformers" also were against contraception. Funny how few of the "reformers" are against that now. A thought to ponder.

scotju said...

Neil, Protestantism was started by men who were sexually immoral or who winked at sexual immorality. Luther, the founder of the tribe, 'had' to marry Katherine Von Bora to shut the mouths of his critics who were claiming he and Cathy were getting it on. Lther later endorsed a bigamous marriage for Philip of Hesse. That scandal left a permanent black mark on his reptation. Calvin, according to some authorities sch as St. Alphons Ligouri, was a vicious sodomite. Zwinghi lived with a mistress, and while a Catholic priest, had the gall to ask his bishop for permission to marry his live-in! The sexal immorality of the 'reformers' is pretty good proof God never used them to renew the church. Rather, it's merely proof that they were heretics behaving as it was to be expected of such men.
The liberalism of some Catholic leaders doesn't prove your point. It's comparing apples with oranges. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. In spite of the liberalism in the Catholic Church, the truth will prevail and like the other heresies, such as Arianism, liberalism will be a thing of the past. Alas, in the Protestant churches, history shows that heresy begets more heresies. Except for a few small churches and sects that are trying to hold on to some historical Protestant beliefs, mainline Protestantism is dead. That's what happens when a branch breaks off from the vine.

Neil Parille said...

The claim that "heresy begets heresy" might be true in some general sense, but I think it is misplaced in this case. Ultimately people have minds of their own.

Were the morals of Martin Luther worse than the popes of the renaissance?

If the head of the Southern Baptist Convention kissed the Koran or held an Assisi event, how long do you think he would remain in office?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Actually, there were some very holy popes during the Renaissance. I don't know who started the rumor that the popes of the Renaissance were all immoral wretches. More Protestant propaganda I'm afraid. Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Nicholas V come to mind as being very holy men.

scotju said...

Neil, the very meaning of the word heresy is to make a choice, against the revealed will and doctrine of God. People do have a mind of their own, but when God asks us to obey his commandments, we put aside our choices and conform our hearts and minds to his will. Luther, and his fellow 'reformers' revolted against the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in their personal lives, which turned into rebellion against keeping all the commandments under the 'faith alone justifies heresy'. Yeah, it's wonderful to sin all day, but since faith alone declares a man rightous, no need to worry about those pesky commandments!
As bad as the morals of some of the past Popes were, they never tried to change the doctrines of the Church. Since we depend on the office of the Papacy for the final word in what we believe , God gave the Pope, when he exercises his offical power as the holder of the keys, infallibility in defining and proclaiming faith and morals. It doesn't matter how falliable he is in his personal life, the Holy Spirit makes sure the words that come out of his mouth when he is exercising that office are true. Luther and his fellow 'reformers' don't have that office, so there's no way we could ever trust anything they have to say to us.
Luther's morals, IMHO, were worst than some of the immoral popes. Luther tried to change what we are supposed to believe, and if you don't know what you're supposed to believe, how can you be sure of how to behave? A quick look at the disordered lives of the 'reformers' and their deluded followers shows this to be true.
The Koran kissing and the Assisi event are scandals indeed. But the reasons they are scandals is that they never should have been done in the first place. In Protestantism, stuff like this is business as usual. For example, many conservative Protestants will suck up to the Jewish community, even though the Jews are as anti-Christian as the Muslims. These people follow a system of belief called dispensationalism that teaches that the Jews are still the people of God. It's a heresy, but it's a part of their religion. Business as usual.

Neil Parille said...

I don't think the doctrine of justification by faith alone is any more of an encouragement to sin than confession. In fact, if you look at Luther's 95 theses, he was concerned about the effects of church abuses on the morals of the common man.

Another example is the clerical abuse scandel. For decades the church covered up if not encouraged the sexual abuse of children. When it was exposed by the secular media, how many bishops who enable the abuse of children were disciplined or excommunicated? Cardinal Law was allowed to resign and given a plumb job at the Vatican.

JP2 will be made a saint soon even though he appeared to get more worked up over the state executing murderers than priests molesting children. Does this sound like an organization that has its priorities in order?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Wow Neil, those are some great ad-hominems there. All poor excuses to reject the Church. Why don't you just reject Christ because He allowed Judas to hang out with Him? Sinful individuals in the Church does not make the Church not the Church. It sounds to me like you have been reading the likes of John Bugay, Turretin Fan, James Swan, Steve Hays and the rest of those self proclaimed "scholars." Try formulating some real arguments, like why you think that Luther was right on his views of justification, and faith alone,etc, and then present that as an argument. We can all point to sinful individuals in Protestantism and Catholicism, that does not prove anything other than we are all sinners.

The problem lies in the fact that Protestantism is founded on a rejection of Christ's authority given to His Church, which then leads to more heresy, and that can be seen very clearly in Protestantism. Again, Luther taught that contraception was immoral, why do 99% of Protestants reject that teaching? The Catholic Church has not changed her teaching on it, despite sinners in her midst. Ah, now we have something to discuss.

Neil Parille said...

Matthew,

My issue is with your (or maybe just Stephen's)claim that the liberalism and real and imagined immorality(eg, Calvin's supposed homosexuality) of protestants is somehow damning proof of the falsehood of protestantism.

Many protestant denominations have become liberal, but there have always been conservative ones. In addition, people have split off from the liberal ones.

Incidentally, considering the church's ties with liberal groups like the World Lutheran Federation, WCC and NCC, I don't think the church shares your negative opinion of protestantism. Ratzinger seems rather chummy with protestants and their scholarship to judge from the several books of his I have read. He accepts the liberal protestant line on the authorship of biblical books such as Genesis.

scotju said...

Neil, you're missing the points that Matthew and I are making. We acknowledge that their are people in the Catholic Church that don't live up to what the Church teaches. We've had that from day one. What you don't want to admit is that Protestantism is founded on heresy. The stuff that you folks believe would be considered against the Catholic faith that was given to us by Christ and his apostles. None of the doctrines peculiar to Protestantism can be found in the ancient church. That is the "damming proof" of the falsehood of Protestantism, along with the immoral lives of the so-called reformers who did their best (or worst) to live up to II Peter chapter two.
The spliting process begets heresy and more heresy. It doesn't matter to me wheather they are liberal or conservative splits. Heresy is still heresy.
The fact that many in the Church don't share my negative opinion( and I'll assume Matt's) of Protestantism means absolutely nothing to me. 1700 years ago, many in the Church didn't share the negative opinion that the orthodox believers had of Arianism. So who was right? Recite the Nicene Creed and find out!

Neil Parille said...

Stephen,

There has been a lot of work lately about the horrible state of family life in the late medeival era. Protestantism apparently did a lot to improve the situation. See for example Ozment's book, When Fathers Ruled.

The morals of the reformers seems in general better than the catholics of the time. And I'm not aware of Luther and Calvin shuffling around pedophile ministers so they can prey on children. Do you find Bernard Law's conduct reprehensible?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Neil, again this is all speculative nonsense. Protestantism did nothing to improve living in the middle ages. In fact Calvin created the most corrupt for of government in his era. Again, debate the issues and quit with the character assassinations.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Also, if you want to start comparing sexual abuse cases between Protestantism and Catholicism, you are going to lose. So don't even go there.

scotju said...

Wow Neil, more ad hominens! Like Matt says, deal with the real issues!
Protestantism improved famaly life? Neil, I'm a former Lutheran. A year before I left the Lutheran Church, I started to read a lot of uncensored Lutheran history from Protestant sources. You know what I found out? Morals in Germany went into the crapper because of the Reformation! Luther himself said so! Why? Well, when you teach a divorce can be obtained under the newly discovered exception clause, it had a tendancy to break up families. When you teach,like Luther did, that women are made for whoredom or marriage, it lessened respect for sexual purity. Yeah, ol' Marty really improved family life in Reformation Germany Neil!
Your second statement about the reformers having better morals than the Catholics at that time is laughable. Any honest study of Luther, Calvin's, Beza's lives will reveal that these men had low morals and bad behavior that wold shame a tomcat.
As for Cdl Law tranfering abusive priests, hey Neil, I got it on good authority the Southern Baptist's have the same problem with some of their preachers! That's right, SBC churches are guilty of the same sin! It just goes to show you it's not just a Catholic problem, it's interdenominational.

Neil Parille said...

Matthew,

Can you point to a Southern Baptist version of Cardinal Law?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Neil, again are we going to talk numbers of abuse cases, or are you going to drop it before you look like a fool? Its your choice, really.

Neil Parille said...

Matthew,

What is your evidence that the number of abuse cases is higher in the SBC or LCMS than with the RCC.

Do you believe that what Cardinal Law did was wrong?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Its a known fact that abuse cases are higher in Protestant churches. Even the honest Protestants admit that this is not a Catholic problem. What is your fascination with Cardinal Law, and what does that have to do with what the Church teaches? Is what Judas did wrong? Why did Christ let him go around with him when he was such a horrible person? Again, why don't you worry about the real issues at hand like your heretical faith alone doctrine instead of trying to attack people? I'll tell you what. If you are really serious about debating something. Why don't you take the affirmative position on Luther's position of faith alone. We will have a written debate on it and see how it goes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

http://www.reformation.com/

Matthew Bellisario said...

"We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.

Neil Parille said...

Matthew,

Your articles don't establish that the cases of abuse are higher (percentage wise) in protestant denominations.

Can you point me to a SBC or even Episcopal Bernard Law?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Neil, they clearly show that they are higher percentage wise. Are you going to debate a real subject here or are you going to continue to obsess over Law?

scotju said...

Matt, post a link to those articles by Kaufman. If you can't shut him up, make him look foolish.

Cory Tucholski said...

I find it ironic that the Catholics are yelling "ad hominem" at the Protestant, when the whole reason for rejecting Protestantism presented here is ad hominem.

Bottom line: if the moral compass of a movement's leaders is germane to one, it is germane to both. Since neither Catholic presents a clear reason why it applies to Protestantism but not Catholicism, it is special pleading.

A more full discussion, as well as small mention of the fact that the headline is VERY misleading: http://wp.me/p2bFc-K2.

Matthew Bellisario said...

The facts are facts. The Catholic Church has not, nor will ever change her teaching regarding homosexuality. More and more Protestants however are folding on it all of the time and they justify it by claiming they are able to interpret the Bible properly. There is no point of ultimate authority because the Bible cannot protect itself from misinterpretation. The Catholic however has the living voice of the Holy Ghost which keeps the teaching intact at the highest teaching authority. This however cannot be said for Protestantism. Of course we can debate Sola Scripture until the cows come home, but that is not the focus of the post. Most of my readers get that Sola Scriptura is not a Christian doctrine.

Neil Parille said...

Matthew,

The articles you reference do not prove that the rate of sex abuse is higher in protestant denominations. I'm not obsessed with Bernard Law. As an American he is the enabler I know most about.

Do you disapprove of what Law did?

scotju said...

Cory, it's not "special pleading" to reject Protestantism because of the sexual failings of it's founders. These men claimed to be purer than the 'corrupt' Roman priesthood, and made the claim they were restoring the Gospel. Yet, these 'reformers' taught you could get a divorce, ever though Christ forbade it. Luther gave his approval to the bigamous marriage of Phillip of Hesse. Calvin was a sodomite. Zwingli lived in sin with a woman and had the gall to demand the bishop allow him to get married. And you think it's ad hominum that we reject Protestantism because the founders were corrpt? The Apostle Peter would disagree with you! II Peter 2 Cory!

Neil Parille said...

Stephen,

1. Do you approve of what Law did?

2. Catholic exegetes reject the idea that Peter wrote II Peter. To defend Petrine authorthsip you have to read prot works.

3. Do you have any proof that Calvin was a "sodomite"?

scotju said...

Neil my answers are :
1. No, I don't approve of what Law did, anymore than I approve what a lot of Jewish Rabbis did (see failedmessiah.com) what a lot of Sothern Baptist preachers did, (type Debbie Kaufman into your search engine) or what a lot of independant fundamentalist Baptists did (Google Jack Hyles) This stuff is universal Neil. Their are networks of sexually abusing ministers of religion in every organization, and I guarantee there's Cdl Law clones in every one of them.
2.Who cares what some liberal Catholic Bible scholar says about II Peter? We know from our tradition who wrote it and that tradition is older and sounder than a few or many flakey liberal Catholic (or Protestant for that matter) so-called Bible scholars.
3. Calvin's sodomy is discussed in "The History Of The Heresies" by St Alphonus Ligouri.
Neil, your ask a lot of questions, but you don't seem to really want any answers. What's wrong?

Neil Parille said...

Stephen,

From what I found, there is no merit to your claims about Calvin. Also, Zwingli eventually got married. So the behavior of the protestants doesn't seem worse and is probably better than the catholics of his day.

scotju said...

Neil, since you never bothered to look up Ligouri's book, I must reguard your remark about Calvin as insincere. It reminds me of the way many followers of the late Herbert Armstrong would refuse to listen or read any criticism of the man.
"Also,Zwinghi eventually got married". Yeah, the cheap whoremonger got married years after breaking his vows of celibacy and living in sin. This bit of logic is supposed to impress me?
Your foolish remark claiming "the behavior of the Protestants doesn't seem worst and is probably better than the Catholics of his day" shows a serious disconnent with reality. Anyone who has done some reading of the uncensored history of the Reformatin knows morals and faith when into the gutter in all the major centers of the movement. Luther was constantly bitching about immorality and lack of devotion among his followers. He was even honest enough to say they were more devot and moral nder the Papists! So instead of bothering me or Matt with your silly questions, why don't you do some serious reading about the Reformation? Then we'll talk again in a few months to see if you have learned anything.