|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 3, 2023 0:50:01 GMT
www.wsj.com/world/pope-francis-softens-vaticans-ban-on-gay-blessings-c76464b0Well, whadday'all think? Bending over so far backwards that I could put my chiropractor's kids through college, you could --- could --- draw a parallel between this and the medieval a delphopoiesis ceremony, where two men become as brothers (I think Sts Sergius and Bacchus did something like this), but I'd have to be assured that the two people were utterly committed to chastity, and that there were never even going to be a hint of homosexual love-making. The (one hopes) purely platonic "Boston marriage" phenomenon, where two women have a more or less lifelong friendship with cohabitation, also comes to mind. Something like that is cool, no problem. But that's clearly not how it is, in practically any relationships such as the ones where people nowadays would be seeking such blessings. This has a very bad look. To any casual observer, it looks like a same-sex marriage, and if it is allowed in this place or that, you can bet good money that there are going to be ceremonies in churches that look and feel just like weddings, with guests, receptions, the whole shebang. There will be a lot of conservative, tradition-minded Christians, of all stripes from continuing Anglicans all the way down to Baptists and Pentecostals, who are going to have issues with this. Look for Jack Chick's successors to come out with those little comic books, and there will be similar tracts, sermons, you name it. And this time, many people will agree with them. I don't see this setting well with Muslims either. We may have reached the Rubicon. Again, bending over so far backwards...
(I don't have a chiropractor. I was just taking poetic license.)
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 1:13:59 GMT
I have yet to find an english translation of Pope Francis' response to see what it actually says. Would prefer to read the text myself, rather than take someone's word for what he said in his response.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 1:19:51 GMT
Ok, found it.
Pope Francis's Response to the Second Dubium
a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called "marriage." Other forms of union realize it only in "a partial and analogous way" (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called "marriage."
b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere "ideal."
c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
d) However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as "sinners" other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops' Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that "is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule" as this "would lead to an intolerable casuistry" (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 1:39:00 GMT
The first question that comes to mind after reading the Pope's response is:
Can sinners request and receive blessings from a Priest?
If the answer is no, then very few, if any people could ever be blessed.
If the answer is yes, then what the Pope has stated doesn't go against anything the Church teaches.
Pastoral prudence comes into play, as to what is asked for and what if any blessing may be conveyed on sinners.
(f) if applied would mean that anyone the Preist knows has a problem with continued mortal sin can never receive a blessing from a Preist, because they are "sinners" and not worthy of the act of a blessing as it would be improper and they would gain nothing from it.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 3, 2023 1:42:06 GMT
I'm saving most of my posts on this dubia and all related matters for the other place. However, this doesn't really strike me as a change, since Pope Francis has been knocking himself out trying to find a way to bless gay "civil unions" for literally years. I frankly feel it's a bit of an obsession with him, like his other obsessions with the environment, migrants, and TLM. His wish to do this has been further shown by his complete refusal to discipline any German or other clerics doing gay couple/ gay marriage blessings.
Of course half the secular media is completely dimwitted and going on like the Church previously outlawed ever blessing a gay person and this is some big sea change. It would be amusing to read all the idiocy if it wasn't so incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 1:44:05 GMT
www.wsj.com/world/pope-francis-softens-vaticans-ban-on-gay-blessings-c76464b0Well, whadday'all think? Bending over so far backwards that I could put my chiropractor's kids through college, you could --- could --- draw a parallel between this and the medieval a delphopoiesis ceremony, where two men become as brothers (I think Sts Sergius and Bacchus did something like this), but I'd have to be assured that the two people were utterly committed to chastity, and that there were never even going to be a hint of homosexual love-making. The (one hopes) purely platonic "Boston marriage" phenomenon, where two women have a more or less lifelong friendship with cohabitation, also comes to mind. Something like that is cool, no problem. But that's clearly not how it is, in practically any relationships such as the ones where people nowadays would be seeking such blessings. This has a very bad look. To any casual observer, it looks like a same-sex marriage, and if it is allowed in this place or that, you can bet good money that there are going to be ceremonies in churches that look and feel just like weddings, with guests, receptions, the whole shebang.There will be a lot of conservative, tradition-minded Christians, of all stripes from continuing Anglicans all the way down to Baptists and Pentecostals, who are going to have issues with this. Look for Jack Chick's successors to come out with those little comic books, and there will be similar tracts, sermons, you name it. And this time, many people will agree with them. I don't see this setting well with Muslims either. We may have reached the Rubicon. Again, bending over so far backwards...
(I don't have a chiropractor. I was just taking poetic license.) The Pope addresses this in his response. It is clear this will not happen. g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops' Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, The words are right there which address your concern.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 3, 2023 3:52:57 GMT
Pope Francis is the greatest Pope we've had since Sylvester II, my personal favorite. And a thousand years from now, he will be a great saint remembered just as fondly. Really, if someone hates the Pope so much, why don't they go and join one of the myriad sedevacantist sects or cults? If someone thinks they can do a better job than Pope Francis, let them have at it and start their own little religion in northern Idaho? Which they're probably going to do anyway once the next conclave does not go to their liking. The next pope is much more likely to be someone like Tagle or Hollerich (fingers crossed on that one; I hope all further popes are Jesuits), than Sarah or Burke.
In WWII, the Russians developed a neat little strategy on the Eastern Front. They would throw a couple of grenades ahead of their position, causing the panicked Germans to fire on where the grenades landed with all they got, thereby revealing to the Russians their positions, troop strength, deployment, command structure and fire power. This also got the Germans to waste prodigious amounts of precious ammunition, which further reduced German morale. All for the price of a couple of hand grenades.
Pope Francis is doing the same thing. For the price of a couple sheets of paper, he has his enemies firing with all they got. He knows who his enemies are, where they are, what they are capable of (not much) and how much support they have among the faithful (even less). It's a winning strategy, and his successor is sure to take it up.
I wish him many more years! Ad multos annos!
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 3, 2023 10:23:49 GMT
Hey Global Moderator, is there any way to combine threads on this forum? It seems we have two threads going on this same topic - I think Iagosan started the other one.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 3, 2023 14:03:11 GMT
The first question that comes to mind after reading the Pope's response is: Can sinners request and receive blessings from a Priest? If the answer is no, then very few, if any people could ever be blessed. If the answer is yes, then what the Pope has stated doesn't go against anything the Church teaches. Pastoral prudence comes into play, as to what is asked for and what if any blessing may be conveyed on sinners. (f) if applied would mean that anyone the Preist knows has a problem with continued mortal sin can never receive a blessing from a Preist, because they are "sinners" and not worthy of the act of a blessing as it would be improper and they would gain nothing from it. Your line of reasoning strikes me as quintessentially Jesuitical, akin to the apocryphal story about the penitent who asked if he could smoke while he prayed, to which the priest said "well, can you pray while you smoke?". The phenomenon of a sinner receiving a blessing is something quite different from a public blessing of a couple who are in a union that (a) unnaturally mimics marriage and (b) in all likelihood has repeated sodomy, with no intention of quitting it, as an essential part of it. Drug dealers and human traffickers are people too, ergo sinners, but that doesn't mean that a priest can or should bless their enterprises. Is the next thing to bless adulterous unions where no sacramental marriage is possible due to one (or both) putative "spouses" already being married to someone else? They're people, they're sinners, so why not? One can parse away, and rationalize away, anything.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 3, 2023 14:08:41 GMT
Hey Global Moderator, is there any way to combine threads on this forum? It seems we have two threads going on this same topic - I think Iagosan started the other one. Maybe I'm just being dense, or the morning coffee and nicotine lozenge haven't kicked in yet, but where's the other thread? I'm not finding it. I don't know if threads can be combined or not. I'll check.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 3, 2023 14:12:06 GMT
www.wsj.com/world/pope-francis-softens-vaticans-ban-on-gay-blessings-c76464b0Well, whadday'all think? Bending over so far backwards that I could put my chiropractor's kids through college, you could --- could --- draw a parallel between this and the medieval a delphopoiesis ceremony, where two men become as brothers (I think Sts Sergius and Bacchus did something like this), but I'd have to be assured that the two people were utterly committed to chastity, and that there were never even going to be a hint of homosexual love-making. The (one hopes) purely platonic "Boston marriage" phenomenon, where two women have a more or less lifelong friendship with cohabitation, also comes to mind. Something like that is cool, no problem. But that's clearly not how it is, in practically any relationships such as the ones where people nowadays would be seeking such blessings. This has a very bad look. To any casual observer, it looks like a same-sex marriage, and if it is allowed in this place or that, you can bet good money that there are going to be ceremonies in churches that look and feel just like weddings, with guests, receptions, the whole shebang.There will be a lot of conservative, tradition-minded Christians, of all stripes from continuing Anglicans all the way down to Baptists and Pentecostals, who are going to have issues with this. Look for Jack Chick's successors to come out with those little comic books, and there will be similar tracts, sermons, you name it. And this time, many people will agree with them. I don't see this setting well with Muslims either. We may have reached the Rubicon. Again, bending over so far backwards...
(I don't have a chiropractor. I was just taking poetic license.) The Pope addresses this in his response. It is clear this will not happen. g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops' Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, The words are right there which address your concern. No, it's a hole big enough to drive a semi-tractor-trailer through --- "pastoral prudence in certain circumstances" is basically carte blanche. Evidently he's trying to avoid a schism with the German bishops. Tail wagging the dog.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 15:05:50 GMT
The first question that comes to mind after reading the Pope's response is: Can sinners request and receive blessings from a Priest? If the answer is no, then very few, if any people could ever be blessed. If the answer is yes, then what the Pope has stated doesn't go against anything the Church teaches. Pastoral prudence comes into play, as to what is asked for and what if any blessing may be conveyed on sinners. (f) if applied would mean that anyone the Preist knows has a problem with continued mortal sin can never receive a blessing from a Preist, because they are "sinners" and not worthy of the act of a blessing as it would be improper and they would gain nothing from it. Your line of reasoning strikes me as quintessentially Jesuitical, akin to the apocryphal story about the penitent who asked if he could smoke while he prayed, to which the priest said "well, can you pray while you smoke?". The phenomenon of a sinner receiving a blessing is something quite different from a public blessing of a couple who are in a union that (a) unnaturally mimics marriage and (b) in all likelihood has repeated sodomy, with no intention of quitting it, as an essential part of it. Drug dealers and human traffickers are people too, ergo sinners, but that doesn't mean that a priest can or should bless their enterprises. Is the next thing to bless adulterous unions where no sacramental marriage is possible due to one (or both) putative "spouses" already being married to someone else? They're people, they're sinners, so why not? One can parse away, and rationalize away, anything. e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better. Again, the words are right there.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 3, 2023 15:22:05 GMT
Your line of reasoning strikes me as quintessentially Jesuitical, akin to the apocryphal story about the penitent who asked if he could smoke while he prayed, to which the priest said "well, can you pray while you smoke?". The phenomenon of a sinner receiving a blessing is something quite different from a public blessing of a couple who are in a union that (a) unnaturally mimics marriage and (b) in all likelihood has repeated sodomy, with no intention of quitting it, as an essential part of it. Drug dealers and human traffickers are people too, ergo sinners, but that doesn't mean that a priest can or should bless their enterprises. Is the next thing to bless adulterous unions where no sacramental marriage is possible due to one (or both) putative "spouses" already being married to someone else? They're people, they're sinners, so why not? One can parse away, and rationalize away, anything. e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better. Again, the words are right there. That, too, is so vague, at least in actual practice, as to be meaningless. The couple living in a sodomitical relationship could well say "oh, yes, we understand, this isn't a 'marriage', but we have this commitment... blah blah blah". And, one assumes, they would go around telling all their guests at the reception the same thing, just so everyone is on the same page, and nobody comes away thinking "it's just like they got married". And everyone would understand the distinction. Heterosexual couples, who cannot get annulments because of existing valid marriages, could be blessed in similar fashion. Why couldn't they? Do they not fulfill the same criteria? A loving commitment, sinners who need help and encouragement to "live better", who have something that is so, so much more than just sex. Following this logic, you know, a lot of people are into polyamory --- "throuples". Why not bless them too?
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 3, 2023 15:36:27 GMT
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better. Again, the words are right there. That, too, is so vague, at least in actual practice, as to be meaningless. The couple living in a sodomitical relationship could well say "oh, yes, we understand, this isn't a 'marriage', but we have this commitment... blah blah blah". And, one assumes, they would go around telling all their guests at the reception the same thing, just so everyone is on the same page, and nobody comes away thinking "it's just like they got married". And everyone would understand the distinction. Heterosexual couples, who cannot get annulments because of existing valid marriages, could be blessed in similar fashion. Why couldn't they? Do they not fulfill the same criteria? A loving commitment, sinners who need help and encouragement to "live better", who have something that is so, so much more than just sex. Following this logic, you know, a lot of people are into polyamory --- "throuples". Why not bless them too? The question posed in the first Dubia is as follows: (best as I can find) According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 10), "In the beginning," God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this "principle," considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a "possible good" objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine? I am not going to repost the response, as it is above. The response is clear in upholding what the Church teaches. Apparently the submitters of the Dubia didn't like the response so they rephrased their question. Maybe they should have asked what they intended to ask in the first place. It seems they needed to rephrase every one of their questions. One can bless a sinner without blessing the sin. It is done all the time. So to trying to get a yes or no answer as to whether some sort of blessing can be given to someone who is committing sin, well that isn't a question with a yes or no answer. You are asking a question, or putting out hypotheticals which were not included, and not in the response by the Pope. To try to fit your questions into an answer for another question, just doesn't fly. But, but, but what if doesn't look well. And yes, pastoral prudence is practiced all the time. That is what the Priest is there for. Even Jesus himself practiced pastoral prudence. To take that phrase and immediately swing the pendulum all the way over to "heck we can do what we want to" is a bad faith response and indicates that Priest's ignore Church teachings outright. Could it happen, sure on either side of the spectrum, but that is where Bishops are supposed to come in to keep control of their dioceses.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 4, 2023 7:55:17 GMT
And yes, pastoral prudence is practiced all the time. That is what the Priest is there for. Even Jesus himself practiced pastoral prudence. To take that phrase and immediately swing the pendulum all the way over to "heck we can do what we want to" is a bad faith response and indicates that Priest's ignore Church teachings outright. Could it happen, sure on either side of the spectrum, but that is where Bishops are supposed to come in to keep control of their dioceses. In Germany, priests are blessing gay marriages en masse in defiance of the Pope’s directive not to do so, and their bishops are backing them up. It’s reasonable to be concerned that this will become the norm everywhere. It is not an exaggeration, it is happening now.
|
|