|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 6:16:59 GMT
Could you be more specific? Here's what the Catechism says about scandal: 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.And that is what has happened here. Regardless of the Church's good intentions, regardless of the narrow definition of the type of same-sex couple's blessing there might be, all the world is going to hear is "the Church is okay with same-sex relationships", and make every inference that comes with that (as well as the inference that "the Church is changing and will change even more", which is how the modern world wants things to be). I don't have statistics on what percentage of these are sexless, celibate, "Josephite" unions (such as the "Boston Marriage" of the 19th century where two women would share a home and a life with no assumption they were necessarily having homosex), but I can't think it would even reach double digits. Of course, one could take the tack that the Church can never do anything that is harmful to anyone, could never do anything that would lead the faithful (or those outside her fold) into sin or error, but I do not make that assertion.
I was thinking of the Church view of not only homosexuality but also homosexuals:
I think critics are focusing solely on 2357 while Pope Francis is looking at 2358 and 2359 in light of 2357.
I have no issue with the canons you cite here, and I have no issue with homosexuals. I have had at least four extended family members who were LGBT, probably more if the truth were known, and a close family friend of ours (my father was very fond of him and treated him almost as a surrogate son) was a gay man living with HIV until he died tragically from a cause unrelated to his illness. I have had several LGBT friends, including a very close boyhood friend who was deeply closeted and gave no indications whatsoever of being gay until he "came out" years later --- I had no clue. I have worked alongside several LGBT coworkers, and even tried to help one of them get a job in my department (he was obviously gay) because he was an outstanding employee who would have been an asset to our working group. And I am 99% certain that the priest who received me into the Church was gay; we reconnected shortly before his death and I'll always treasure that. So while I cannot condone sodomy, I am very tolerant of LGBT people and always have been. Due to my marital situation, it is entirely possible that I will have to live celibately for the rest of my life, so I know what it is like to have to live the way LGBT people are called to live. |
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Dec 23, 2023 9:30:28 GMT
This mess has probably but a lot of faithful Catholics in west African states in great danger.
The bishops of the Muslim-majority nations of Burkina Faso and Niger have appealed to the faithful in their care to “remain calm and firm in the faith” in the wake of the Vatican’s new document on the blessing of same-sex couples. The bishops of Burkina Faso and Niger are clearly worried that the Vatican and those who advocated this nonsense have put innocent lives at risk.
Fiducia Supplicans: Catholic Bishops in Burkina Faso, Niger Urge Calmness, “firm” Faith
By Jude Atemanke
Ouagadougou, 21 December, 2023 / 8:49 pm (ACI Africa).
Catholic Bishops in Burkina Faso and Niger have cautioned the people of God in their respective countries against “anxiety” amid controversies around Fiducia Supplicans, the Vatican declaration on the possibility of blessing “same-sex couples” and couples in other “irregular situations”, which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith (DDF) released on Monday, December 18.
In their Wednesday, December 20 statement, members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Burkina Faso and Niger (CEBN) weigh in on what they describe as the “turmoil and diverse interpretations that have followed the publication of this document.”
“We, your Bishops and Fathers of the Church Family of God in Burkina Faso and Niger, do not want to leave you in a state of embarrassment, incomprehension and anxiety, and so we urge you to remain calm and firm in the faith,” CEBN members say.
The Catholic Church leaders explain, “Catholic doctrine on marriage does not change, and the Church does not approve of irregular or same-sex unions.”
CEBN members pledge to release “a detailed statement” on the implementation of Fiducia Supplicans after “in depth” study of the document.
They say, “All the pastoral questions raised by the implementation of the Fiducia Supplicans document will be studied in depth and will be the subject of a detailed statement by the Bishops of this Conference.”
Catholic Bishops in Burkina Faso and Niger urge members of the Clergy, and women and men Religious in their respective countries to “continue their ministry with serenity.”
“May Christ Jesus, whose birth lights are already shining on our earth, illuminate our minds and establish our hearts in the peace he brings to the world,” CEBN members implore in their December 20 collective statement.
Jude Atemanke
Jude Atemanke is a Cameroonian journalist with a passion for Catholic Church communication. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Buea in Cameroon. Currently, Jude serves as a journalist for ACI Africa.
www.aciafrica.org/news/9870/fiducia-supplicans-catholic-bishops-in-burkina-faso-niger-urge-calmness-firm-faith
or
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 23, 2023 14:20:08 GMT
To recap, the Catechism differentiates between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. It argues that it cannot approve of the former but it cannot neglect the latter if they are deep-seated. Given that, it can bless homosexual couples but they have to practice chastity.
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 23, 2023 15:01:39 GMT
Have you ever seen a same sex couple, or someone you know is in a same sex relationship ask a priest for a blessing? If not what is all this big fuss about? Do you know anyone in an irregular marriage, or who have gotten divorced and has yet to be granted an annulment, but has started a new relationship? If not, does that mean they don't exist? Certainly not, they exist, and some of them still attend Mass, and refrain from receiving communion. They even go to confession. And yes, they receive blessings from priests. Again, we are not talking about blessing the situation, we are talking about blessing the person. I know someone very well who fits the description in your second paragraph. That person is my wife. She is in an invalid "marriage", and I do not know whether she receives communion now, but she did at our son's first communion a few years ago, while in this invalid marriage, and from all indications it is not a Josephite marriage. I don't know what she does about confession. Whether she and her consort have received a blessing as a couple, I cannot say. She filed for an annulment, this after ten years of being in this invalid marriage, and we are awaiting a deci This business of "blessing persons, not situations" is meeting with resistance from conservative religionists of all persuasions, who are not interested in nuance. Jesuitical slicing and dicing at its finest. Remember how Fr John Courtney Murray (also a Jesuit) helped the Kennedys to draw a distinction between personally opposing abortion and enabling it in the political sphere. Well all I can say about the resistance from conservative religionists who are not interested in nuance is that they probably need to look deeper into the Catholic religion, because it is full of nuance. Seriously, look at sin. What may be a sin for one person, may not be a sin for another person. There are conditions that must be met for something to be a sin. Look at children of couples who get divorced and then an annulment and how they are considered vs people who were never married. Look at laicized priests who still remain a priest. Look at the death penalty, or war. The catechism is just full of nuance, so to use nuance as a reason to not make a distinction between the sin and the sinner is a very sloppy or lazy excuse for those people. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 16:20:08 GMT
I know someone very well who fits the description in your second paragraph. That person is my wife. She is in an invalid "marriage", and I do not know whether she receives communion now, but she did at our son's first communion a few years ago, while in this invalid marriage, and from all indications it is not a Josephite marriage. I don't know what she does about confession. Whether she and her consort have received a blessing as a couple, I cannot say. She filed for an annulment, this after ten years of being in this invalid marriage, and we are awaiting a deci This business of "blessing persons, not situations" is meeting with resistance from conservative religionists of all persuasions, who are not interested in nuance. Jesuitical slicing and dicing at its finest. Remember how Fr John Courtney Murray (also a Jesuit) helped the Kennedys to draw a distinction between personally opposing abortion and enabling it in the political sphere. Well all I can say about the resistance from conservative religionists who are not interested in nuance is that they probably need to look deeper into the Catholic religion, because it is full of nuance. Seriously, look at sin. What may be a sin for one person, may not be a sin for another person. There are conditions that must be met for something to be a sin. Look at children of couples who get divorced and then an annulment and how they are considered vs people who were never married. Look at laicized priests who still remain a priest. Look at the death penalty, or war. The catechism is just full of nuance, so to use nuance as a reason to not make a distinction between the sin and the sinner is a very sloppy or lazy excuse for those people. Indeed it is "full of nuance", the Catholic Faith is a thinking person's religion, as is Judaism. The number of intellectuals and people of above-average intelligence whom it has attracted is too great to be counted. Hard-shelled fundamentalist religions tend not to attract intellectuals, or even terribly cultured people for that matter. (There are exceptions. The eponymous founder of Bob Jones University was a connoisseur of the arts, and BJU's Museum of Sacred Art is one of the finest museums in the country. It's well worth a visit.) But your comments concerning sin would be better cast as issues of subjective responsibility. There are actions that are sinful, some gravely so ( ergo mortal sin when the other two conditions are met), some only venially. The other two conditions --- sufficient reflection and full consent of the will --- can be so nebulous that possibly not even the sinner can sort them out, and I dare say, possibly the confessor can't either. I am, however, not clear on the examples you cite. What does putative bastardy (which is not the child's fault) have to do with moral culpability? Ditto laicized priests. It is no sin, not even in the objective order, to be laicized. The death penalty or war? Not clear what you're getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 16:21:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 23, 2023 16:30:45 GMT
Well all I can say about the resistance from conservative religionists who are not interested in nuance is that they probably need to look deeper into the Catholic religion, because it is full of nuance. Seriously, look at sin. What may be a sin for one person, may not be a sin for another person. There are conditions that must be met for something to be a sin. Look at children of couples who get divorced and then an annulment and how they are considered vs people who were never married. Look at laicized priests who still remain a priest. Look at the death penalty, or war. The catechism is just full of nuance, so to use nuance as a reason to not make a distinction between the sin and the sinner is a very sloppy or lazy excuse for those people. Indeed it is "full of nuance", the Catholic Faith is a thinking person's religion, as is Judaism. The number of intellectuals and people of above-average intelligence whom it has attracted is too great to be counted. Hard-shelled fundamentalist religions tend not to attract intellectuals, or even terribly cultured people for that matter. (There are exceptions. The eponymous founder of Bob Jones University was a connoisseur of the arts, and BJU's Museum of Sacred Art is one of the finest museums in the country. It's well worth a visit.) But your comments concerning sin would be better cast as issues of subjective responsibility. There are actions that are sinful, some gravely so ( ergo mortal sin when the other two conditions are met), some only venially. The other two conditions --- sufficient reflection and full consent of the will --- can be so nebulous that possibly not even the sinner can sort them out, and I dare say, possibly the confessor can't either. I am, however, not clear on the examples you cite. What does putative bastardy (which is not the child's fault) have to do with moral culpability? Ditto laicized priests. It is no sin, not even in the objective order, to be laicized. The death penalty or war? Not clear what you're getting at. I was simply pointing out other portions of the Catholic religion which come with a lot of nuance. Not pointing out any sinfulness, just the nuance in the Catholic religion related to those and we could get into a whole lot more nuance. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 16:34:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Dec 23, 2023 18:27:12 GMT
I don't understand why the complexity of an issue needs to be the pillar on which it stands, rather then the simplicity of the message that it is trying to convey. Nearly every document that has come out under this pontificate, always requires a deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of the sense and intentions of said document. It's like reading an article by a scholar, written for other scholars and the laymen who don't understand are treated like a bunch of low-brows who ought not speak about things they know nothing about.
Over the past few days I've watched and read numerous videos and articles all rushing to explain the complexities with regard to the ambiguity of the document. Each one basically reiterating what others have said. In short, we are told that the Church is not blessing the sin and they are not blessing the union/couple.
The questions that most always follows is "Then why create a document that changes nothing, to address an issue that, according to some, was never an issues to begin with?" What is the (non) issue, one may ask? Well, apparently it's the numerous same sex and irregular couples who are overwhelming the priests to bless them as individuals, but are constantly being turned away.
Sure! As if there is has always been a need to address the gray area of blessing those who are sinners, but not blessing the sin. This is rhetorical nonsense.
The bottom line is this. The document was written exactly as intended and the reaction was exactly what they expected. What will happen over time is not so inconceivable or absurd as to warrant a condescending rebuke from the intellectuals who profess the proper understanding of the document.
There will be clergy who will use the ambiguity of the document to begin blessing the same sex/irregular couple as a validation of their relationship. When this becomes too much of an issue so as to demand a response, those in charge will simply point to the document and throw these clergy under the bus by insisting that these men are in error. However, no sanctions or formal rebukes will be handed out. I can almost guarantee that a priest, bishop or cardinal who engages in blessing the couple as a relationship, will not be stripped of salary, residence or position under this pontificate.
The action will simply become the common practice of blessing all that is good and truthful in that couples life. Giving them the grace to follow God's will for them, which in their eyes, is to continue in their relationship because the priest just gave them a blessing, with the Church's blessing to bless that which is good. Therefore, this must be God's will for them...
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 23, 2023 21:19:38 GMT
I don't understand why the complexity of an issue needs to be the pillar on which it stands, rather then the simplicity of the message that it is trying to convey. Nearly every document that has come out under this pontificate, always requires a deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of the sense and intentions of said document. It's like reading an article by a scholar, written for other scholars and the laymen who don't understand are treated like a bunch of low-brows who ought not speak about things they know nothing about. Over the past few days I've watched and read numerous videos and articles all rushing to explain the complexities with regard to the ambiguity of the document. Each one basically reiterating what others have said. In short, we are told that the Church is not blessing the sin and they are not blessing the union/couple. The questions that most always follows is "Then why create a document that changes nothing, to address an issue that, according to some, was never an issues to begin with?" What is the (non) issue, one may ask? Well, apparently it's the numerous same sex and irregular couples who are overwhelming the priests to bless them as individuals, but are constantly being turned away. Sure! As if there is has always been a need to address the gray area of blessing those who are sinners, but not blessing the sin. This is rhetorical nonsense. The bottom line is this. The document was written exactly as intended and the reaction was exactly what they expected. What will happen over time is not so inconceivable or absurd as to warrant a condescending rebuke from the intellectuals who profess the proper understanding of the document. There will be clergy who will use the ambiguity of the document to begin blessing the same sex/irregular couple as a validation of their relationship. When this becomes too much of an issue so as to demand a response, those in charge will simply point to the document and throw these clergy under the bus by insisting that these men are in error. However, no sanctions or formal rebukes will be handed out. I can almost guarantee that a priest, bishop or cardinal who engages in blessing the couple as a relationship, will not be stripped of salary, residence or position under this pontificate. The action will simply become the common practice of blessing all that is good and truthful in that couples life. Giving them the grace to follow God's will for them, which in their eyes, is to continue in their relationship because the priest just gave them a blessing, with the Church's blessing to bless that which is good. Therefore, this must be God's will for them... The reason the document was created is stated right in the very first portion of the document. It is in response to the Dubia, and his response, then additional questions to his response, which basically asked a question the Cardinals should have asked in the first place. Because the Cardinals either can't read, or choose to ignore the response of the Pope, and insist on making interpretations of what the Pope said fall outside the scope of what is in his response, we find ourselves here. Kind of reminds me of a child who when they ask their parent something and don't get the answer they want, they keep asking questions. My response as a parent was not nearly as tolerant, nor was my fathers. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 24, 2023 3:00:41 GMT
I think a proper understanding of such involves the ff. from the Catechism:
That means the Church understands that "homosexual tendencies" cannot be avoided easily because they are "deep-seated". That is why trying to do so is a "trial" for homosexuals. Given that, the Church has to accept "them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and avoid "unjust discrimination". That's because the Church believes that homosexuals are also "called to fulfill God's will in their lives, and if they're Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
Part of that acceptance of same-sex couples (not same-sex acts) is to bless them, and following the Catechism, based on "just discrimination".
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 26, 2023 4:38:52 GMT
And this from an organization calling itself "Catholic Vote" but before this, my observation:
Those who attempt the defend the present Pope, the present-day actions of the Church, the existing hierarchy, "no matter what", will always find a way to do so, no matter how they have to "spin" it. You can rationalize anything. And if one is convinced that the Church, in the present moment --- in any "present moment" --- can never do anything, or allow anything, that is harmful to souls, that makes truth ambiguous, or that is even "all that bad", then there is really nothing I can tell that person, to get them to think otherwise. I am not convinced in that fashion. Some are. "The gates of hell will not prevail" means different things to different people.
Getting that out of the way, here is the commentary to which I referred --- HSD
******************
Dear __,
I had big plans to send you a different message today…
But alas… the Vatican decided to announce some news.
By now you’ve heard the pope has signed off on a doctrinal note allowing for – under certain circumstances – blessings for same-sex “couples.”
Moral theologians, and those engaged in apologetics, will be quick to explain that the doctrinal note contained several qualifications. The Church did not announce any change in doctrine. It did not change its teachings on marriage. And purposeful attempts to conflate these blessings with marriage are inadmissible. And so on…
But I imagine these explanations didn’t provide much comfort.
And for good reason.
The practical consequences of this decision are obvious to anyone with eyes.
LGBT activists have never been simply interested in a “blessing” as individuals. That has always been available to everyone. Instead, the gay rights movement, both inside and outside the Church, has been agitating for the full surrender of Catholic teaching on human sexuality.
What everybody knows, but is unwilling to say out loud, is that the LGBT movement wants the Church to endorse its goals, including the condoning of same-sex lifestyles, unions, and even sexual acts as authentic expressions of human love.
This, of course, is impossible.
The media is already misleading the public by portraying the decision as a “major doctrinal shift,” while left-wing Catholics have erupted in cheers. That’s because very soon, some same-sex couples in civil marriages will be demanding blessings on the altars of our churches. And many priests (and perhaps even some bishops) will participate. With the necessary proviso, of course – “This isn’t a sacramental marriage” in fine print.
Some Catholics and curious observers will blame the pope for the confusion. Or certain members of the curia, or Father James Martin-type priests, bishops, and groups. Another week, more divisions in the Church.
CatholicVote can’t control the prudential judgments of the Vatican.
But we can control how the laity respond.
That’s you and me.
And the last thing we need now is more hand-wringing and pessimism about the state of the Church, despite the moral confusion that grows by the day.
Especially as we prepare to celebrate Christmas!
Instead, I want to urge you to pray for perseverance. To pray for courage. And to recommit yourself to praying for the Church, for the Holy Father, and for all those called to defend and promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Our help is in the name of the Lord.
And together with prayer to recommit yourself to defending and protecting the truths of our Church here in America. This includes promoting and living faithfully the vocation of marriage. Celebrating the unique roles of mothers and fathers – and the gift of children. Protecting the innocence of children in our libraries, bathrooms, schools, and the public square. Fighting for parental rights to educate our children in a morally suitable school. Protecting our right to protect all children from the ravenous wolves of the transgender movement.
… and by defending the rights of people of conscience, including religious institutions, to teach, promote, and defend the natural institution of the family.
This is what CatholicVote is all about.
Not because we are some sectarian freaks.
But because what we are fighting for is true
Even when some say otherwise.
Brian
P.S. So what about that “different” message I had hoped to send you today? It was simply this: it’s almost Christmas. The world may be a mess, but be of good cheer. God's not dead. He’s not even tired!
We’re called to fidelity. No matter the odds. And despite the challenges ahead, I still like our odds.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 26, 2023 11:44:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 26, 2023 18:09:37 GMT
Sentimental mush. Sounds like something Mister Rogers or Bob Ross would have written. But I have a feeling it was Fernandez. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 26, 2023 23:16:12 GMT
Sentimental mush. Sounds like something Mister Rogers or Bob Ross would have written. But I have a feeling it was Fernandez.
Apparently, it's called "sentimental mush" now. And to think that the main source used was the Bible.
|
|
