|
|
Post by M. Hawbaker on Jan 7, 2020 20:53:24 GMT
The bishop charged with handling questions of canon law in France has encouraged his episcopal colleagues to use gender-neutral language on baptismal certificates in an effort to be more welcoming to LGBTQ parents. Bishop Joseph de Metz-Noblat of Langres made his recommendation in a December 13, 2019 letter to France’s bishops in his role as president of the national episcopal conference’s Council for Canonical Questions. Metz-Noblat wrote that the “increasingly complex situation of families in France” has raised challenges for pastoral practice, particularly in regards to baptism. He continued: “Knowing that, according to canon 843, ‘ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to people who request them properly’ and that children cannot be held responsible for the situation of their parents, many chancelleries have been confronted with vocabulary problems in the expressions to be used. “Joint work was carried out by the Commission for the Reform of Administrative Acts of the Church of France, the Commission for Pastoral, Liturgical, and Sacramental Work and the Council for Canonical Questions. Approved by the Permanent Council, the attached form is mainly concerned with the baptized person, making a simple statement of their family situation, without making a moral judgment on it.”
Metz-Noblat concluded his letter by asking fellow bishops to adopt a gender-neutral practice on baptismal certificates in their dioceses as it seems “most appropriate for our time.” His letter included an attached template for such a certificate. Instead of reading the “son/daughter of ______ and _____,” as had been the case previously, the proposed certificate reads “Names and surnames of parents or other holders of parental authority” with spaces below and an area to note the parents’ civil status. The signatory lines for godparents, however, still read “Godfather” and “Godmother.”
|
|
|
|
Post by barb43 on Jan 12, 2020 20:18:22 GMT
Where does one even begin? I feel like I can't even begin to discuss some blasphemy such as this one because I would immediately be politically incorrect.
This is not an issue of attempting to open someone's eyes to the evil in their lives, to point out the sin that separates them from God and fellow moral humans. This is first an issue of not just accepting, but approving of the immoral enslavement of a child's mind, and the doctrinal errors under which that child will be brought up to adulthood. It's pretty tough for a child to grow up to the point of choosing his or her own path to follow in life when the Biblically accurate path has not been presented. Poor analogy, but I'll use it anyway - if all a child eats are pasta, breads, pastries, and ice cream, how could that child possibly be expected to know that eating meat, poultry, vegetables and some fruits will bring them a long & healthy life? I know, it's a weak analogy, but I couldn't think of another. You get the idea, I'm sure. How is a child going to know about life in a "normal" family, a "normal" relationship?  Beyond the child, consider the church - regardless of its denomination, what is going on with the hierarchy and members of any church that permits such blasphemy and evil into its midst?
I'm flabbergasted that any church - Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, or any other (specifically the typical protestants, like Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal) - would openly welcome practicing LGBTQ people into their membership and then re-word their membership documents & baptismal processes to accommodate the LGBTQ agenda. I formally joined the Catholic church in 1987. My late husband was Catholic from birth and had divorced in 1980. In order for me to become a Catholic, he had to have his first marriage annulled through the Catholic church. It was not an easy feat, but it was finally all done & I was accepted into the church. We were then re-married in the Catholic church (we were first married in 1980 by a chaplain on Ft Sill whose denomination permitted re-marriage by a divorced person, and our battalion chaplain had to look around to find a denomination with a chaplain on post who would do that as his denomination didn't permit it), and my late husband was then permitted to take Holy Communion. My point is that these things were not taken lightly! No church that I have been a member of or routinely attended would have welcomed LGBTQ people to join and then have children in that union baptized. (That's 2 Catholic churches locally & 1 in Tulsa from 1987-1994; 1 United Methodist church from 1995-1996; and 3 Southern Baptist churches from 1996-2009.) I think a number of churches that exist in organized religions have gone off the rail. People who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord & Savior should run from any church that behaves as the one discussed in the cited article. Okay, I'll stop now . . .
By the way, I am so far behind the times, that I don't even know what the "Q" means in that LGBTQ acronym. When I was growing up, the "Q" was used to describe the men who were actively "G". "L" women weren't discussed and neither were "B" people. "T" was a bad nightclub act that people laughed about - I had no idea till recent years that people actually lived a life as "T".  I make no apologies for my lack of knowledge of any of that - ^^^. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Hawbaker on Jan 13, 2020 0:11:24 GMT
By the way, I am so far behind the times, that I don't even know what the "Q" means in that LGBTQ acronym. When I was growing up, the "Q" was used to describe the men who were actively "G". "L" women weren't discussed and neither were "B" people. "T" was a bad nightclub act that people laughed about - I had no idea till recent years that people actually lived a life as "T". I make no apologies for my lack of knowledge of any of that - ^^^. "Q" would be someone for example who is born biologically male and is only sexually attracted to other males, but who isn't considered "G" because they identify as a female gendered person.
Or it can be someone who is born biologically female and is only sexually attracted to other females, but who isn't considered "L" because they identify as a male gendered person.
Of course, the way that the LGBTQ community keeps changing the definitions (and making up new ones as they go) that information is subject to change without notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by barb43 on Jan 13, 2020 2:07:24 GMT
"Q" would be someone for example who is born biologically male and is only sexually attracted to other males, but who isn't considered "G" because they identify as a female gendered person. Or it can be someone who is born biologically female and is only sexually attracted to other females, but who isn't considered "L" because they identify as a male gendered person. Of course, the way that the LGBTQ community keeps changing the definitions (and making up new ones as they go) that information is subject to change without notice.
Oh, my goodness - that almost strikes me as humorous, but not quite because it is serious. The whole LGBTQ crowd is so mentally/emotionally messed up that it's really ruining their lives, in this life & possibly the next.
Your last sentence could possibly explain the "+" sign that I often see following LGBTQ ... i.e., LGBTQ+. I really, re-ally don't know what that "+" sign is, except it could be the "whatever it all means this week".  |
|
. . . 
. . . 
I make no apologies for my lack of knowledge of any of that - ^^^. 