Catholic style new light.

1.Yes, during the Iconoclast Controversy in the 8th century, some popes, including Gregory III and the Lateran Council, condemned the iconoclastic emperors who banned the veneration of images, while others, like Leo III, supported the ban. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

The Iconoclast Controversy:

In the 8th century, the Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V, along with some bishops, opposed the veneration of religious images (icons), arguing it was a form of idolatry. 

Pope Gregory III's Response:

Pope Gregory III, in 731, convened a local synod in Rome to affirm the veneration of icons and excommunicated those who opposed them. 

Constantine V's Council:

Constantine V, seeking formal church endorsement for the ban on icons, convened a council at Hieria near Constantinople in 754, which supported the iconoclastic position. 

The Lateran Council:

The West, however, did not support the iconoclastic emperors. The Lateran Council in 767 condemned the Council of Hieria and reaffirmed the teaching of the earlier Synod of Rome. 

Pope John VIII:

Pope John VIII later sent a better translation of the Acts of the council, which helped to remove misunderstandings. 

The Second Council of Nicaea:

In 787, Empress Irene called the Second Council of Nicaea to address the image controversy, which affirmed the veneration of images. 

Later Iconoclast Ideas:

Even after the Second Council of Nicaea, there were isolated cases of iconoclasm in the West, such as Bishop Claudius of Turin in 824, who destroyed images and crosses in his diocese. 

Pope Alexander II:

As late as the eleventh century, Bishop Jocelin of Bordeaux still held iconoclast ideas for which he was severely reprimanded by Pope Alexander II. 

2.The controversy surrounding the Latin Mass, specifically the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), stems from differing views on its role and significance within the Catholic Church, with some viewing it as a vital link to tradition and others as a source of division and resistance to Vatican II reforms. 

Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of the controversy:

The TLM:

This is the older form of the Roman Rite liturgy, celebrated in Latin, and differs from the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) introduced after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). 

Vatican II and its Reforms:

The council aimed to modernize the church, including the liturgy, leading to the use of vernacular languages and a more active role for the congregation in Mass. 

The Rise of the TLM:

After Vatican II, some Catholics, particularly those who were resistant to the reforms, embraced the TLM, viewing it as a more authentic and traditional form of worship. 

Pope Francis's Restrictions:

In 2021, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, a document that placed restrictions on the celebration of the TLM, requiring bishops to seek Vatican approval for its celebration and forbidding the establishment of new TLM communities. 

Arguments for the TLM:

Supporters of the TLM argue that it provides a sense of continuity with the Church's past, fosters reverence and a deeper connection to tradition, and offers a more spiritual experience. 

Arguments Against the TLM:

Critics argue that the TLM can foster division within the Church, is associated with resistance to Vatican II reforms, and can lead to a passive role for the congregation in worship. 

Pope Francis's Justification:

Pope Francis has stated that his restrictions are intended to preserve church unity and prevent the TLM from being used as a tool for division and opposition to the Church's reforms. 

Ongoing Debate:

The controversy continues, with proponents of the TLM pushing for greater access and freedom to celebrate the liturgy, while those who oppose it seek to ensure that the Church's focus remains on the reforms of Vatican II. 

Examples of opposition:

Some Catholics have criticized Pope Francis's decision, with some arguing that the revival of the Latin Mass in recent years has been key to rejuvenating the faith of younger Catholics. 

Examples of support:

Some Catholics have welcomed the news, with some arguing that the new restrictions are necessary to preserve church unity. 

3.The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, affirming Mary's freedom from original sin from the moment of her conception, evolved through centuries of theological debate and devotion, culminating in its formal declaration as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 

Here's a more detailed look at its development:

Early Christian Thought:

While not explicitly defined, the belief in Mary's holiness and special grace was present in early Christian thought. 

Medieval Debates:

The idea of Mary's immaculate conception gained traction during the medieval period, with prominent theologians like John Duns Scotus defending it. 

Franciscan Influence:

The Franciscan order played a key role in promoting the doctrine, with figures like Duns Scotus arguing that Mary's immaculate conception was a result of her special role in salvation history. 

Opposition and Counterarguments:

Not everyone embraced the idea. Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, initially opposed it, arguing that Mary needed to be redeemed by Christ, just like everyone else. 

Rise of Devotion:

Despite the theological debates, devotion to Mary as the "Immaculate Conception" grew, leading to the widespread celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. 

Formal Dogmatic Definition:

In 1854, Pope Pius IX, responding to a widespread desire within the Church, formally defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in the papal bull "Ineffabilis Deus," declaring it a revealed truth to be believed by all Catholics. 

Significance of the Definition:

The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the desire to inspire devotion to the Blessed Virgin and to clarify a belief that was already widely held. 

Lourdes Apparition:

The apparition of Mary to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858, where Mary identified herself as "the Immaculate Conception," further strengthened the belief in the doctrine. 

4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#:~:text=While%20a%20Los%20Angeles%20Times,run%20as%20high%20as%2050%25.

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who have a homosexual orientation (either openly gay or closeted) in the United States.[4] Nevertheless, several studies suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population as a whole.[20][21] While a Los Angeles Times survey of US priests find that 15% say they are completely or mostly homosexual, estimates of homosexual priests run as high as 50%.[4][22]

Studies by James Wolf and by Richard Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the country.[23] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[24]

The John Jay Report published in 2004 suggested that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s".[25]

Another report suggested that from the mid-1980s onwards, Catholic priests in the US were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population, with most of the cases contracted through gay sex, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates.[citation needed] A follow-up study the next year[as of?] by the Kansas City Star found the AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied. The report gained widespread coverage in the media, but the study was criticized as being unrepresentative and having "little, if any, real value".[26] Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit, has suggested that this was because, "Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn't know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy." Additionally, the report suggested that some priests and behavioral experts believed the Church had "scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful".[27] Gumbleton has gone on to argue that the Church should openly ordain gay men.[28]

A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that:

9% of priests identified themselves as gay, and

6% identified themselves as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side".

Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order:

17% of the priests said "definitely", and

27% said "probably";

53% of the priests who were ordained in the years 1982–2002 affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[22]

Shortly after the poll was published, the Vatican ordered an Apostolic visitor to examine American seminaries. The visitation began in 2005, and the final report issued in 2008. The report spoke about "difficulties in the area of morality [...] Usually, but not exclusively, this meant homosexual behavior." Steps were subsequently taken to deal with the issue, including correcting a "laxity of discipline".[29]

Archbishop Justifies LGBT Flags on Coffins in Mexican Cathedral ...