|
Post by iagosan on Oct 4, 2023 9:15:01 GMT
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. Anglican same sex blessings were "not to be confused with weddings", but they took place in church with flowers, rings, music, fancy clothes, and a splashy reception afterwards. Tell me how the Catholic experience will be different.!
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 4, 2023 13:26:43 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. So the Pope has already said don't do X, but a group of Cardinals posed the question of X in the Dubia, or at least tried to, but apparently didn't ask the question right the first time. Hmmm. As far as what German priests are doing and why their Bishops aren't doing anything about it, well, seems like the Church in Germany has an issue. Maybe the Bishops will be replaced shortly. I don't necessarily think just because one little group of people are doing something that it translates to this will be the norm everywhere else. First there would have to be a trend of Catholics entering gay unions and remaining within the Church. Then there would have to be willing priests to do blessings, then Bishops who wouldn't step in. Yea, I don't see that spreading through the Church like some sort of virus, but what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 4, 2023 16:48:23 GMT
As far as what German priests are doing and why their Bishops aren't doing anything about it, well, seems like the Church in Germany has an issue. Maybe the Bishops will be replaced shortly. I don't necessarily think just because one little group of people are doing something that it translates to this will be the norm everywhere else. First there would have to be a trend of Catholics entering gay unions and remaining within the Church. Then there would have to be willing priests to do blessings, then Bishops who wouldn't step in. Yea, I don't see that spreading through the Church like some sort of virus, but what do I know. I think that that is exactly what is going to happen. Among young people, including Catholics, the idea of sexual equality is a non-negotiable element of their system of moral beliefs, and they consider anything short of that to be unspeakably evil. The historical Catholic beliefs are seen as an bathwater to be dumped out in order to save the baby within. And they view the historical treatment of women and LGBT people as a monstrous atrocity, on par with antisemitism. And their position has already become the leading position in Western culture, and is quickly spreading elsewhere. Christian Churches, an the whole, have not managed this major cultural transition well, either digging in their heels, kicking and screaming, or responding with too little, too late. Patience among the young is growing thin, and they see no reason to tolerate the intolerant. Does this mean a schism will occur? Wake up and smell the coffee. It already has, and the parties are just waiting for the paperwork to be signed. The lines have been drawn, people, lay and clergy, have sorted or are sorting themselves into opposing camps, basically waiting for the court of history to decide who gets to keep the house. Pope Francis is right in thinking that anyone who believes that the Church can "return" to some Romantic-era mythical Golden Age in the style of Belloc is hopelessly deluded and is standing in the way of the Church surviving, never mind expanding. While I am certain that a schism is, at this point, a foregone conclusion, I harbor no delusions about how it will play out. I do know, from previous schisms in other churches, that it ain't gonna be pretty. "Amicable divorce" is not on the menu. I can't see any scenario in which the anti-LGBT side "keeps the house", though. Their numbers are dwindling, generation after generation, especially in those parts of the Church that pay the bills.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 4, 2023 16:51:55 GMT
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. Anglican same sex blessings were "not to be confused with weddings", but they took place in church with flowers, rings, music, fancy clothes, and a splashy reception afterwards. Tell me how the Catholic experience will be different.!
Well put. Hole big enough to drive a truck through, camel's nose under the tent flap, pick your metaphor. It would be very helpful to look at the experience of liberal Protestant communions who have implemented this, and see how it has worked out. Throwing a general question out there, to any and all readers, ask yourself, are you ever able to be critical of anything the Pope and the Church say or do in any given present moment --- I'm not talking here about infallible doctrine, whether ordinary or extraordinary --- and to think that they might be wrong? And if not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 4, 2023 16:59:32 GMT
As far as what German priests are doing and why their Bishops aren't doing anything about it, well, seems like the Church in Germany has an issue. Maybe the Bishops will be replaced shortly. I don't necessarily think just because one little group of people are doing something that it translates to this will be the norm everywhere else. First there would have to be a trend of Catholics entering gay unions and remaining within the Church. Then there would have to be willing priests to do blessings, then Bishops who wouldn't step in. Yea, I don't see that spreading through the Church like some sort of virus, but what do I know. I think that that is exactly what is going to happen. Among young people, including Catholics, the idea of sexual equality is a non-negotiable element of their system of moral beliefs, and they consider anything short of that to be unspeakably evil. The historical Catholic beliefs are seen as an bathwater to be dumped out in order to save the baby within. And they view the historical treatment of women and LGBT people as a monstrous atrocity, on par with antisemitism. And their position has already become the leading position in Western culture, and is quickly spreading elsewhere. Christian Churches, an the whole, have not managed this major cultural transition well, either digging in their heels, kicking and screaming, or responding with too little, too late. Patience among the young is growing thin, and they see no reason to tolerate the intolerant. Does this mean a schism will occur? Wake up and smell the coffee. It already has, and the parties are just waiting for the paperwork to be signed. The lines have been drawn, people, lay and clergy, have sorted or are sorting themselves into opposing camps, basically waiting for the court of history to decide who gets to keep the house. Pope Francis is right in thinking that anyone who believes that the Church can "return" to some Romantic-era mythical Golden Age in the style of Belloc is hopelessly deluded and is standing in the way of the Church surviving, never mind expanding. While I am certain that a schism is, at this point, a foregone conclusion, I harbor no delusions about how it will play out. I do know, from previous schisms in other churches, that it ain't gonna be pretty. "Amicable divorce" is not on the menu. I can't see any scenario in which the anti-LGBT side "keeps the house", though. Their numbers are dwindling, generation after generation, especially in those parts of the Church that pay the bills. This from St Athanasius: May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises─but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 4, 2023 17:18:08 GMT
Anglican same sex blessings were "not to be confused with weddings", but they took place in church with flowers, rings, music, fancy clothes, and a splashy reception afterwards. Tell me how the Catholic experience will be different.!
Well put. Hole big enough to drive a truck through, camel's nose under the tent flap, pick your metaphor. It would be very helpful to look at the experience of liberal Protestant communions who have implemented this, and see how it has worked out. Throwing a general question out there, to any and all readers, ask yourself, are you ever able to be critical of anything the Pope and the Church say or do in any given present moment --- I'm not talking here about infallible doctrine, whether ordinary or extraordinary --- and to think that they might be wrong? And if not, why not? Absolutely we are. The Church was certainly wrong in how they handled the sexual abuse which spanned possibly a century or more. Just one example, to what is really a rhetorical question. But the above example isn't the same as everything else. There are degrees to which one might question depending on the particular issue. So the simple yes/no answer isn't always the case either.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 4, 2023 17:33:53 GMT
As far as what German priests are doing and why their Bishops aren't doing anything about it, well, seems like the Church in Germany has an issue. Maybe the Bishops will be replaced shortly. I don't necessarily think just because one little group of people are doing something that it translates to this will be the norm everywhere else. First there would have to be a trend of Catholics entering gay unions and remaining within the Church. Then there would have to be willing priests to do blessings, then Bishops who wouldn't step in. Yea, I don't see that spreading through the Church like some sort of virus, but what do I know. I think that that is exactly what is going to happen. Among young people, including Catholics, the idea of sexual equality is a non-negotiable element of their system of moral beliefs, and they consider anything short of that to be unspeakably evil. The historical Catholic beliefs are seen as an bathwater to be dumped out in order to save the baby within. And they view the historical treatment of women and LGBT people as a monstrous atrocity, on par with antisemitism. And their position has already become the leading position in Western culture, and is quickly spreading elsewhere. Christian Churches, an the whole, have not managed this major cultural transition well, either digging in their heels, kicking and screaming, or responding with too little, too late. Patience among the young is growing thin, and they see no reason to tolerate the intolerant. Does this mean a schism will occur? Wake up and smell the coffee. It already has, and the parties are just waiting for the paperwork to be signed. The lines have been drawn, people, lay and clergy, have sorted or are sorting themselves into opposing camps, basically waiting for the court of history to decide who gets to keep the house. Pope Francis is right in thinking that anyone who believes that the Church can "return" to some Romantic-era mythical Golden Age in the style of Belloc is hopelessly deluded and is standing in the way of the Church surviving, never mind expanding. While I am certain that a schism is, at this point, a foregone conclusion, I harbor no delusions about how it will play out. I do know, from previous schisms in other churches, that it ain't gonna be pretty. "Amicable divorce" is not on the menu. I can't see any scenario in which the anti-LGBT side "keeps the house", though. Their numbers are dwindling, generation after generation, especially in those parts of the Church that pay the bills. The LBGTQRSTUV folks are having their time currently, as they are screaming the loudest. However, the percentage of the population that is gay, or whatever we are calling it is an extreme minority. No, they will not take over the Church. Might they leave the Church, certainly, just like the Protestants who have a million different churches, depending on what one wants to believe. That isn't going to change, because folks just want to do what they want to do. The Methodist church recently was split due to allowing gay preachers. Ok, does that have any effect on the RCC, nope, they weren't part of it in the first place. If a group of people want to start a gay catholic church, great, let them, because again, they won't be part of the RCC. Again, the numbers of gays is less than 5 or 10% of the population and if you factor in the number of gays who claim to be religious of some kind, that number is maybe 2 or 3% of the population. This, in my opinion is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As far as anti LBGTQ or whatever that means. I am certain, every one on this forum either has a family member or knows someone who is gay. Does that mean that we don't treat the person with respect. No, I hope not. Does that mean that we constantly tell them they are living a sinful life, nope not my place to do that. As long as they aren't affecting my life, that is on them. Will they understand I don't agree with their decision, yep, just like family or friends who aren't in valid marriages, or leave their spouses/children or anything else that I don't feel is appropriate behavior. But again, I don't harp on them about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 4, 2023 17:42:55 GMT
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. That's exactly what the Palmarians, that loopy Feenyite Church in New Hampshire, and myriad sedevacantist sects and cults believe about themselves. As for the schisms among the Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists, I agree that that were ugly and damaging to both sides. But remaining together was no longer sustainable, and would have been even more ugly and damaging. To both sides. There was no point in staying in a toxic marriage, for either side. "Agreeing to disagree" was no longer an option, and divorce was the "least worst" option. I don't think that there is going to be much unity on the anti-LGBT side of the schism, though. There is nothing in the way of a central figurehead or leadership, and the myriad factions loathe each other and much as they hate the progressives. There's not all that much that holds them together except their opposition to the progressive side. Their obsession with ideological purity means that once they separate from the progressives and strike out on their own, constant infighting will stand in the way of them "uniting the clans" So I don't find appeals for "unity" from the anti-LGBT side all that credible. Nor do I find such appeals from the progressive side all that practicable. Yes, divorce is ugly. Yes, divorce is damaging. But in this case, divorce has become necessary for the good (or least bad) for both sides. Yes, it's sad, but it's inevitable, and the Church has to prepare for it, as Pope Francis is doing.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 4, 2023 17:48:08 GMT
Well put. Hole big enough to drive a truck through, camel's nose under the tent flap, pick your metaphor. It would be very helpful to look at the experience of liberal Protestant communions who have implemented this, and see how it has worked out. Throwing a general question out there, to any and all readers, ask yourself, are you ever able to be critical of anything the Pope and the Church say or do in any given present moment --- I'm not talking here about infallible doctrine, whether ordinary or extraordinary --- and to think that they might be wrong? And if not, why not? Absolutely we are. The Church was certainly wrong in how they handled the sexual abuse which spanned possibly a century or more. Just one example, to what is really a rhetorical question. But the above example isn't the same as everything else. There are degrees to which one might question depending on the particular issue. So the simple yes/no answer isn't always the case either. So we can agree on at least this. Going a step further, people of good will can disagree on whether Decision X, taken by the Church at any one point in time, is a good decision, a bad decision, or somewhere in between. As you well point out, it is not always a binary of "yes/no", there are degrees of wisdom and folly. One could also take the position that we can look to the past, to mistakes that were made, mistakes that were acknowledged and corrected, but as to the present, that our task is blindly and totally to accept whatever is proposed, and not to second-guess it. I reject that out of hand. Some do not.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 4, 2023 17:54:14 GMT
I think that that is exactly what is going to happen. Among young people, including Catholics, the idea of sexual equality is a non-negotiable element of their system of moral beliefs, and they consider anything short of that to be unspeakably evil. The historical Catholic beliefs are seen as an bathwater to be dumped out in order to save the baby within. And they view the historical treatment of women and LGBT people as a monstrous atrocity, on par with antisemitism. And their position has already become the leading position in Western culture, and is quickly spreading elsewhere. Christian Churches, an the whole, have not managed this major cultural transition well, either digging in their heels, kicking and screaming, or responding with too little, too late. Patience among the young is growing thin, and they see no reason to tolerate the intolerant. Does this mean a schism will occur? Wake up and smell the coffee. It already has, and the parties are just waiting for the paperwork to be signed. The lines have been drawn, people, lay and clergy, have sorted or are sorting themselves into opposing camps, basically waiting for the court of history to decide who gets to keep the house. Pope Francis is right in thinking that anyone who believes that the Church can "return" to some Romantic-era mythical Golden Age in the style of Belloc is hopelessly deluded and is standing in the way of the Church surviving, never mind expanding. While I am certain that a schism is, at this point, a foregone conclusion, I harbor no delusions about how it will play out. I do know, from previous schisms in other churches, that it ain't gonna be pretty. "Amicable divorce" is not on the menu. I can't see any scenario in which the anti-LGBT side "keeps the house", though. Their numbers are dwindling, generation after generation, especially in those parts of the Church that pay the bills. The LBGTQRSTUV folks are having their time currently, as they are screaming the loudest. However, the percentage of the population that is gay, or whatever we are calling it is an extreme minority. No, they will not take over the Church. Might they leave the Church, certainly, just like the Protestants who have a million different churches, depending on what one wants to believe. That isn't going to change, because folks just want to do what they want to do. The Methodist church recently was split due to allowing gay preachers. Ok, does that have any effect on the RCC, nope, they weren't part of it in the first place. If a group of people want to start a gay catholic church, great, let them, because again, they won't be part of the RCC. Again, the numbers of gays is less than 5 or 10% of the population and if you factor in the number of gays who claim to be religious of some kind, that number is maybe 2 or 3% of the population. This, in my opinion is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As far as anti LBGTQ or whatever that means. I am certain, every one on this forum either has a family member or knows someone who is gay. Does that mean that we don't treat the person with respect. No, I hope not. Does that mean that we constantly tell them they are living a sinful life, nope not my place to do that. As long as they aren't affecting my life, that is on them. Will they understand I don't agree with their decision, yep, just like family or friends who aren't in valid marriages, or leave their spouses/children or anything else that I don't feel is appropriate behavior. But again, I don't harp on them about it. Again, as far as your comments in this post go, I don't really disagree with you. I have had at least four extended family members (probably more if the truth were known) who were gay. (It's a huge extended family on both sides, with roots in central Appalachia, though many, including myself, have scattered hither and yon.) Of the only one with whom I have had any meaningful contact in recent years, he never came right out and told me, but he has an obvious male romantic partner. If he were to tell me, and ask me how long I have known, I would tell him "oh, I figured that out when you were about five years old". It's never been an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 4, 2023 18:00:48 GMT
The LBGTQRSTUV folks are having their time currently, as they are screaming the loudest. However, the percentage of the population that is gay, or whatever we are calling it is an extreme minority. No, they will not take over the Church. Might they leave the Church, certainly, just like the Protestants who have a million different churches, depending on what one wants to believe. That isn't going to change, because folks just want to do what they want to do. The Methodist church recently was split due to allowing gay preachers. Ok, does that have any effect on the RCC, nope, they weren't part of it in the first place. If a group of people want to start a gay catholic church, great, let them, because again, they won't be part of the RCC. Again, the numbers of gays is less than 5 or 10% of the population and if you factor in the number of gays who claim to be religious of some kind, that number is maybe 2 or 3% of the population. This, in my opinion is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As far as anti LBGTQ or whatever that means. I am certain, every one on this forum either has a family member or knows someone who is gay. Does that mean that we don't treat the person with respect. No, I hope not. Does that mean that we constantly tell them they are living a sinful life, nope not my place to do that. As long as they aren't affecting my life, that is on them. Will they understand I don't agree with their decision, yep, just like family or friends who aren't in valid marriages, or leave their spouses/children or anything else that I don't feel is appropriate behavior. But again, I don't harp on them about it. LGBT people are by no means an "extreme minority" or a fad that can be simply dismissed. Nor are their sympathizers and supporters a minority that can be simply dismissed. Calling it "a mountain out of a molehill" is delusional. As you said, most people have friends and relatives that are LGBT, and most of them support LGBT equality. And most of them have seen first or second hand how poorly LGBT people have been treated by the Church, and want to see that changed. They see anti-LGBT sentiment as toxic bathwater that needs to be dumped. Sorry, but the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" line has been proven time and time again to be nothing but a hypocritical platitude. Nobody buys that anymore. As for splitting off and forming their own LGBT church, that is far more likely to happen on the Traditionalist side. A lot of them already have, and a lot of those who remain already have one foot out the door.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 4, 2023 18:01:17 GMT
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. That's exactly what the Palmarians, that loopy Feenyite Church in New Hampshire, and myriad sedevacantist sects and cults believe about themselves. As for the schisms among the Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists, I agree that that were ugly and damaging to both sides. But remaining together was no longer sustainable, and would have been even more ugly and damaging. To both sides. There was no point in staying in a toxic marriage, for either side. "Agreeing to disagree" was no longer an option, and divorce was the "least worst" option. I don't think that there is going to be much unity on the anti-LGBT side of the schism, though. There is nothing in the way of a central figurehead or leadership, and the myriad factions loathe each other and much as they hate the progressives. There's not all that much that holds them together except their opposition to the progressive side. Their obsession with ideological purity means that once they separate from the progressives and strike out on their own, constant infighting will stand in the way of them "uniting the clans" So I don't find appeals for "unity" from the anti-LGBT side all that credible. Nor do I find such appeals from the progressive side all that practicable. Yes, divorce is ugly. Yes, divorce is damaging. But in this case, divorce has become necessary for the good (or least bad) for both sides. Yes, it's sad, but it's inevitable, and the Church has to prepare for it, as Pope Francis is doing. Yes, and that is also what Athanasius and like-minded people in the era of the Arian heresy believed about themselves as well. And in that case, they were right. The only "Arians" you have in the present day are Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints (after a fashion), and arguably Muslims (again, after a fashion). The "schism" to which you refer is about far more than just LGBT.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 4, 2023 18:27:33 GMT
The "schism" to which you refer is about far more than just LGBT. Absolutely agree. Positions on LGBT equality are a convenient proxy for other deep disagreements. A very salient one, but only one of many. Partisan politics is another salient proxy. The main disagreement is whether to return to some mythical Golden Age of the Church, or dump the bathwater, rinse off the baby, and let it grow up. Those on the progressive side are driven that, in spite of the many failings of the Church in the past, the baby is still worth saving, based on the many glorious things the Church has done in the past. The sides radically disagree on what that the baby is, or what it should grow up into. Any "middle ground" is rapidly disappearing. Polarization has progressed to the Blues and Greens or Guelphs and Ghibellines level and is only to become more so in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 4, 2023 19:28:49 GMT
The LBGTQRSTUV folks are having their time currently, as they are screaming the loudest. However, the percentage of the population that is gay, or whatever we are calling it is an extreme minority. No, they will not take over the Church. Might they leave the Church, certainly, just like the Protestants who have a million different churches, depending on what one wants to believe. That isn't going to change, because folks just want to do what they want to do. The Methodist church recently was split due to allowing gay preachers. Ok, does that have any effect on the RCC, nope, they weren't part of it in the first place. If a group of people want to start a gay catholic church, great, let them, because again, they won't be part of the RCC. Again, the numbers of gays is less than 5 or 10% of the population and if you factor in the number of gays who claim to be religious of some kind, that number is maybe 2 or 3% of the population. This, in my opinion is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As far as anti LBGTQ or whatever that means. I am certain, every one on this forum either has a family member or knows someone who is gay. Does that mean that we don't treat the person with respect. No, I hope not. Does that mean that we constantly tell them they are living a sinful life, nope not my place to do that. As long as they aren't affecting my life, that is on them. Will they understand I don't agree with their decision, yep, just like family or friends who aren't in valid marriages, or leave their spouses/children or anything else that I don't feel is appropriate behavior. But again, I don't harp on them about it. LGBT people are by no means an "extreme minority" or a fad that can be simply dismissed. Nor are their sympathizers and supporters a minority that can be simply dismissed. Calling it "a mountain out of a molehill" is delusional. As you said, most people have friends and relatives that are LGBT, and most of them support LGBT equality. And most of them have seen first or second hand how poorly LGBT people have been treated by the Church, and want to see that changed. They see anti-LGBT sentiment as toxic bathwater that needs to be dumped. Sorry, but the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" line has been proven time and time again to be nothing but a hypocritical platitude. Nobody buys that anymore. As for splitting off and forming their own LGBT church, that is far more likely to happen on the Traditionalist side. A lot of them already have, and a lot of those who remain already have one foot out the door. Yes, LBGTQ people are an extreme minority, with less than 10% total population and less than probably 3% population in churches. Believing in secular equality for a particular group of people has nothing to do with believing that they should or would have the ability to change private entities. For example on the secular side: Here in the US when Kaepernick decided to kneel during the national anthem at NFL games. That didn't bother me one bit. I am a patriotic American, and a veteran. He was displaying his right to protest whatever he was protesting in a peaceful, respectful way. I have no problem with that. Now, had he decided to run out, grab the flag, piss on it, light it on fire, or some other crazy display, then yes, I would have a problem with that. However, there is/were a group of people who were just beside themselves because he wasn't standing with his hand over his heart. But these same people have little problem with others working to destroy the fabric of our democracy. They would willingly destroy the Constitution and our current laws simply for political reasons, and because of fear of losing office, some of them kneel down and essentially kiss the ..... of other persons who are leading the threat to our democracy, and call themselves patriots. What a complete and utter joke. On the secular side, I have no problem with gay marriage and them being able to function as a typical heterosexual marriage would in the eyes of the law. Our country isn't run by the Catholic Church. There is a huge distinction. And yes, I call it gay marriage, because one is issued a marriage license from the state, like it or not, that is the word that is used. The marriage license means nothing to the Church in the first place. If two people, a man and a woman go down and get married at the JP's office, the Church doesn't recognize that anyway if they are both Catholic, since it isn't the sacramental marriage. Have all the heterosexual people who have been married, divorced and remarried outside of the Church stood up and demanded that the Church recognize their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages as legitimate. Nope. Yes, the Church has a process for that, in that the couple would need first to get a legal divorce before their annulment can be considered. Even the Church itself recognizes the secular law, and requires that the marriage be severed in the secular world before the Church even looks at it. Do I agree with annulments, or even divorce personally, nope, not one bit. If a grown person can't make a commitment and stick to it, well, I just have a personal problem with that. I guess it is best that I don't get to run the Church. But again, folks are holding protests and raising a big stink over folks with invalid marriages not being accepted. The number of people who fall into the category of divorced and remarried are far, far greater than the number of gay people getting married and wanting to be within the Church. The Church has failed to bend to the will of the remarried, outside the annulment process, I don't believe they will bend to the gay marriage thing no matter how loud they scream. Nor should they. People in gay marriages or living gay lifestyles are free to attend Mass, go to confession, do whatever they please. They just aren't free to have the Church bend to their desires of having a sacramental wedding, or receiving communion. Nor should the Church, as it would create scandal. Just as if a heterosexual couple isn't in a valid marriage and would like to receive communion, they should be refused due to the scandal that it would create, in addition to it being against Church teaching. Heck I don't like the fact that one of our priests, and several of our acolytes are divorced and are prancing around the alter like they are holier than thou. Again, my personal aversion to people not being able to keep their word regarding marriage. But it is within Church teachings for them to do so, so I just have to deal with it. And yes, one can love the sinner and hate the sin. It certainly is possible, as we do it every day with our fellow man/woman over all sorts of sins. To say it can't be done regarding gay people is simply wrong. However loving someone is different than accepting their sins as being good. Regardless of the sin. I have a brother who is a laicized priest and is in a gay marriage. Do I love my brother, yes. Do accept that his choices are good, no. That doesn't stop him from coming to family dinners or me helping him if he asks, just as I do with any of my other 9 siblings, some of which are in illicit marriages. It is the same type of error in my view. Do any of us siblings get into discussions about their situations regarding Church teaching, nope. Since all of them were brought up in the same household as I was with parents that were married for 70 years, and certainly were taught what the Church holds to be true. They know exactly where I stand, so there is no point. They made their decisions and that is on them. No good would come of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by AveMaria on Oct 4, 2023 19:37:59 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. That's how CITH came about.
|
|