Anne Hathaway leaves Catholic Church over gays

Screen siren Anne Hathaway, 27, the Oscar nominated actress with Irish and French ancestry, has left the Catholic Church – along with the rest of her family – because of its intolerant views on homosexuality.

Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but she shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay.

“The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out,” she said recently. “Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?” But the Episcopal church plan didn't really work out for her either. "So I'm - nothing,” she said. “I'm a work in progress.”

Source: irishcentral.com/story/ent/amyandrews_gossipgirl/anne-hathaway-leaves-catholic-church-over-gays-84010252.html

Well, too bad for her, I guess. God bless her.

The Church doesn't hate her brother, She hates the sin.

I think Ms Hathaway is the one who a limited view of her brother, her view lacks the ontological damage a homosexual lifestyle would do to her brother.

Apparently HER views aren't "intolerant" of the Church, right?

This is extremely sad.

Anne and her family have left the Way, the Truth, and the Life --Christ Jesus--because they have not only a false understanding of Christ and His Church but also because they would **rather **accept a limited, fallible, changeable and false 'feeling' of love rather than accept the truth which would require them to reject false love for true love.

It’s one of the reasons I’m very ambivalent about the CC.

That is truly a shame. She obviously does not have clear views of the Church. Gays are not condemned. Not even close. The Church would just ask that her brother live a life of abstinence, which I know is not an easy task, but the reward is definitely worth it. I have a gay friend that is a strong Catholic and very knowledgeable in the Church.

Well, I’m not sure why you’d be ambivalent.

The Church does not hate gays any more than it hates fornicators who are heterosexual.

The Church hates **sin. **[size=2]Not the sinners, the [size=4]sin.[size=2]

Wouldn’t you [size=4]want[/size][/size][/size] that for yourself and your faith tradition? That your Church would love the people, but hate all that which** [size=4]hurts people and hurts God?

**[/size][size=2]Isn’t it a sign of the [size=4]truth[/size][/size] of the Church that it could recognize sin (and not be **blinded **by the false claims of evil). . .and that it would love people enough to stand up and tell them the truth about evil[size=2]?[/size]
[/size]

Pray for Miss Hathaway and her family.

The Church is a hospital for sinners.

Peace,
Ed

I have a relative who is a convicted murderer and the Catholic Church says he is a sinner because he has broken one of the commandments. Let me call and tell my family we are leaving (and not to let the screen door whap anybody on the way out).

That’s an excellent point. The Church is indeed a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints.

It appears to me that there are some people (I’m not saying Anne is one of them but I think she has definitely been affected by them)–a vocal minority perhaps–who want to have all the glory of being saints and martyrs–without doing any of the pesky things like prayer, penance, fasting, suffering and denial.

And it appears to me that a lot of people want to cast themselves as this kind of ‘wanna-be saint’ by pitching themselves against a very false representation of the Church.

And so they take all the sins in which they want to indulge–whether they are sins of the flesh, homosexual, heterosexual, contraception, abortion, rape, etc. . .or whether they are sins of other type–greed, gluttony, anger, hatred–and they paint these sins as being virtues. And themselves as ‘poor persecuted souls’ being **denied the practice of these virtuous and wonderful things. . .usually by the big, bad Catholic Church. **(Cue boos, hisses, and cries of “Inquisition!” “Women haters!” “Insult of choice”)

So homosexual actions are no longer ‘sins’ to them–they are expressions of “loooove” and of course nothing is higher in the pantheon of relativity than ‘loooove’. . .unless it’s ‘tolerance’ (which means unhesitating lockstep acceptance and in fact, servile and slavish ‘kissing up’ that a particular sin–oops, ‘virtue’ is not only GOOD, but it is BETTER than all the other goods in the whole world.)

And since the Catholic Church is the organization that is most likely to preach all the fullness of Truth. . .it is vital that all these ‘wanna-be saints’ pit themselves against the Church --because they have to try to make it appear that the Church is wrong and they are **right.

They aren’t. They never will be. **

Pray for them. Because unfortunately we aren’t just dealing with the sins (homosexual actions, whatever). We’re dealing with the further sin of people lying to themselves and others that their sins ‘aren’t sins’. We’re dealing with societal delusion on a scale that has never been higher in recorded history–not even in the pagan world. The pagans at least recognized when they were transgressing truth. Today’s modern crowd is doing its damnedest (literally) to try to convince themselves that truth isn’t truth, in order that they can ‘get what they want.’

Sin is a spiritual disease. and since body and soul are inseparable, it affects the body as well.

[quote="Tantum_ergo, post:11, topic:186344"]
That's an excellent point. The Church is indeed a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints.

It appears to me that there are some people (I'm not saying Anne is one of them but I think she has definitely been affected by them)--a vocal minority perhaps--who want to have all the glory of being saints and martyrs--without doing any of the pesky things like prayer, penance, fasting, suffering and denial.

And it appears to me that a lot of people want to cast themselves as this kind of 'wanna-be saint' by pitching themselves against a very false representation of the Church.

And so they take all the sins in which they want to indulge--whether they are sins of the flesh, homosexual, heterosexual, contraception, abortion, rape, etc. . .or whether they are sins of other type--greed, gluttony, anger, hatred--and they paint these sins as being virtues. And themselves as 'poor persecuted souls' being *denied the practice of these virtuous and wonderful things. . .usually by the big, bad Catholic Church. *(Cue boos, hisses, and cries of "Inquisition!" "Women haters!" "Insult of choice")

So homosexual actions are no longer 'sins' to them--they are expressions of "loooove" and of course nothing is higher in the pantheon of relativity than 'loooove'. . .unless it's 'tolerance' (which means unhesitating lockstep acceptance and in fact, servile and slavish 'kissing up' that a particular sin--oops, 'virtue' is not only GOOD, but it is BETTER than all the other goods in the whole world.)

And since the Catholic Church is the organization that is most likely to preach all the fullness of Truth. . .it is vital that all these 'wanna-be saints' pit themselves against the Church --because they have to try to make it appear that the Church is wrong and they are **right.

They aren't. They never will be. **

Pray for them. Because unfortunately we aren't just dealing with the sins (homosexual actions, whatever). We're dealing with the further sin of people lying to themselves and others that their sins 'aren't sins'. We're dealing with societal delusion on a scale that has never been higher in recorded history--not even in the pagan world. The pagans at least recognized when they were transgressing truth. Today's modern crowd is doing its damnedest (literally) to try to convince themselves that truth isn't truth, in order that they can 'get what they want.'

[/quote]

If you study the strategies used by the radicals which began in the 1960s, it was to convince certain groups that they were victims of another group. They told their followers that "they" (the other group) was the problem. That there was nothing wrong with them. To embrace who they were. And this created a values neutral environment where everyone got to choose what was right and wrong.

If everything is just 'shades of grey,' the result is anarchy and an avoidance of looking honestly at what each one of us is doing.

Peace,
Ed

It is probably a good thing for the Church at least, that she never became a nun, given her attitude. It is never good when nuns use the tools of the Church in the services of anti-Christian messages.

She is a fine looking woman. I wish her all the best.

This is really sad. Another case of, "I don't like this thing that they say, so I'm going to find a place that I like." I don't like that many are going to hell. That doesn't mean I'm going to become a universalist. We have to stop looking for our likes and start looking for Truth.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

God bless.

A few points
(1) so she didn’t care about the Church stand on homosexuality? Until it effected someone she knew…How noble of her.
(2)Her credibility in hollywood shot shot upwards. Maybe they might give her a few choice roles for a change.
(3) How big is the ego of celebrities. She expects a billion or so people. To change their beliefs, that they have held for 2,000yrs. Because all of a sudden It effects someone she knows?
Well if she can;t support my church. I can;t support her boring movies.

It IS important for us as catholics to make sure we project the ACTUAL teaching of the church on sexuality without distorting or amplifying it to reflect the distaste we may have for certain kids of sins that don't happen to appeal to US.

Let's admit that until the last 20 years or so there has been a general culture of digust and hatred for homosexuals that was markedly different than the culture towards, say, adulterers. Ever heard of a man being dragged out of a bar and beaten because 'the guys' heard he had cheated on his wife? I sure haven't! But are those behaviors THAT much different in God's eyes? No!

However much Hollywood would like to blame this on the Church, it goes rather deeper than that. It's human nature. It's MUCH easier to be disgusted with sinners we don't identify with than those we do. Convenient, eh?

Fair or not, the gay activists have done a good PR job convincing ouur culture that the only way to eliminate this kind of mistreatment of homosexuals is to eliminate the cultural disapproval of the behavior. THIS is the argument that needs dismantling! Nobody beats up a guy who admits to being an alcoholic. Nobody finds him a revolting person, even when he falls off the wagon on occasion (except maybe when actually drunk). We do a pretty GOOD job of supporting the dignity of the recovering alcoholic's PERSON while retaining the moral disapproval of what he has done. We can do the same with homosexuality, but we need to purge our side of the overt hostility first.

We actually have to LOVE the sinner, not just say it. That goes beyond voting against gay marriage. and applauding the exclusion of gays from seminaries.

You’re right but you need to consider how the media presents reality to all of us. They tend to focus on the worst examples on both sides of the issue so they can sell more newspapers or increase their ratings on TV. Balanced reporting is sorely lacking.

The next thing: Are you saying only Catholics or mostly Catholics are beating up gays?

Also, when have you ever seen the following in a newspaper (meaning no disrespect to nonbelievers): Atheist shoots two in bank robbery.

Everybody seems to know the story of some guy that shot an abortion doctor. They may not remember his name but that was not the important part. The important part was that he was a Christian nut.

I don’t want to hang out with all sorts of people who behave a certain way. I don’t hate them but I’m not going to hang out with a bunch of people who think having a good time means getting falling down drunk, for example. I don’t have anything in common with people who talk about sports all the time, either.

And I certainly don’t want to be around anyone who thinks beating up gay people is OK.

Peace,
Ed

[quote="edwest2, post:18, topic:186344"]

The next thing: Are you saying only Catholics or mostly Catholics are beating up gays?

[/quote]

Goodness no. On the contrary, I was noting that this was once considered an unremarkable feature of American culture at large and that the gay activists are attempting to lay the CAUSE of it at the feet of christianity in general and often catholicism in specific. I'm saying that this isn't caused by the morall classification of gay sex as immoral but by the flawed human tendency to treat "other people's sins" as more serious than their own.

Like you, I'm not much into hanging out with a drunk crowd or even the sports statistics guy crowd. But I'm also not somebody who will have nothing to do with a alcoholic person when he's NOT drinking. See the difference? There's plenty of drunks in my family tree. It's something I've learned to deal with. I actually can love the person and hate the sin without having to completely shun the person.

Sure its HARDER with actively gay folks who practice openly gay behavior in front of you and get mad if you say anything. Are drinking alcoholics any different? Not in my experience....

[quote="Matt_707, post:7, topic:186344"]
That is truly a shame. She obviously does not have clear views of the Church. Gays are not condemned. Not even close. The Church would just ask that her brother live a life of abstinence, which I know is not an easy task, but the reward is definitely worth it. I have a gay friend that is a strong Catholic and very knowledgeable in the Church.

[/quote]

My thoughts exactly (I was about to write, as I read down the thread)...

It is not a sin to be a homosexual. It is a sin to not be chaste for our station in life.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.