|
Post by ralfy on Jan 5, 2024 2:49:55 GMT
You accuse the Pope of being judgmental, and for proof require others to ask an unnamed woman to give valid reasons for treating an animal like a human being.
All you were asked to do was to state what those valid reasons are, and you couldn't even answer that question.
In short, you were not defending your points.
You still didn't answer my question, and that's fine, I really don't care, that's between you and your conscience, and really none of my affair, but as to your comments, okay, I'll bite. It's kind of a waste of my time to do so, given that I have not spoken to the woman, but here goes: - She could suffer from depression or some other psychological malady, and the dog could be a huge comfort to her.
- She could love this little creature of God more than she has ever loved anyone else.
- She could have a psychological problem that prompts her to spoil her dog.
- She could reason that whatever money she spends on the dog is hers to spend as she pleases. (One person's wastefulness is another person's preference. My son spends what I see as a ridiculous amount on comic books, games, and so on --- he has an independent source of income that providentially fell into his lap and will last until he turns 18 --- but at least I know where he is and what he's doing, not out doing drugs, getting involved with gangs, getting drunk, out here "fooling around" with some girl, much worse things I could have to worry about, and I make sure that half of his income goes straight into his savings.)
- She could, for whatever reason, find this dog's company more pleasing than that of any human.
- She could be widowed and it could be her husband's dog, the only living thing she has that was somehow a part of him.
Or some other reason (or reasons) to which I'm not privy.
Or she might be acting in bad faith, saying "yes, I know I shouldn't do this, that I'm wasting money vainly, this is pretty bad, the Pope is right to upbraid me, but I'm a free agent, and... [insert further reasons for her action]". Hard to say.
So let me get this straight (no pun intended):
- People having an issue with two men (or two women) standing before a priest (as in the picture with Fr Martin), getting a blessing, with a high likelihood that they will go home and perform peccatum illud horribile inter christianos non nominandum, possibly even that evening --- "who am I to judge?"
- Some dowager lady who gets a little sickening over how she treats her dog (and it's the Pope who has an issue with it) --- "oh, that's okay, she had it coming"
Those reasons are driven by psychological problems and even, as you pointed out, "acting in bad faith." How are they valid?
Also, why do you consider trying to defend your own arguments a waste of time?
Finally, the point of the anecdote is to show that FS is not meant for you not to judge but to show that blessings are meant for those who seek God. From the article shared earlier:
The implication is that people who seek God but are homosexual deserve to be blessed but that they shouldn't be blessed for any other reason. Similarly, a woman who has psychological problems seeks blessing to heal her of her illness and not to bless her fur-baby because she thinks an animal can replace compassion from other human beings.
In the case of the anecdote, what the woman should have done is to ask the Pope to bless her and her pet because she is suffering for the reasons you pointed out and not because she has essentially turned her pet into a human child and thinking that that will help her deal with her problems. (Keep in mind that there's a difference between treating a pet as an animal companion and treating it as a human infant.)
In the case of Fr. Martin, he should bless homosexuals if they're struggling with their sin and not to affirm the same. He needs to be reminded that the Church welcomes homosexuals but not homosexual behavior.
This point was explained in excerpts from the Catechism I shared earlier, and it looks like no one bothered to think about that. When the Declaration stated the same, what was your response? "Sentimental mush".
Finally, what is the cause of chaos involving this? Is it normal for priests to first ask those who seek a blessing to give reasons for doing so? This reminds me of something similar, with Jesus curing people of their illnesses. In various cases, He didn't ask them to give reasons why He should cure them, and in others, several didn't even return to at least acknwledge that they were cured.
In which case, should the Pope have blessed the fur-baby and made the psychologically ill woman happy, which means what Fr. Martin did was right, or was the Pope right, which would have made Fr. Martin wrong?
How now brown cow?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 5, 2024 2:57:42 GMT
At the risk of being snide, if it was two impoverished trans sex workers with a dog, the Pope would probably think it wonderful and invite them to bring the dog to dinner at the Vatican.
That may happen if no one will take care of the dog. OTOH, it can probably be placed in another area if the restaurant doesn't allow pets.
Also, this reminds me of the term "WWJD" from Christians in general. That is, Jesus invited not only sex workers but even tax collectors to dinner. He even cured lepers, and in one case, most didn't even return to thank and praise God. Later, he showed support for a child in a time when children were treated as property, and that with judgment also came charity, and even asking for forgiveness.
Given that, the views of "sentimental mush" melt into very difficult discernment.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 5, 2024 3:00:36 GMT
And it just keeps coming: www.nasdaq.com/articles/vatican-moves-to-calm-bishops-over-same-sex-blessings-approvalSpin, spin, spin. Isn't this something? Here you have the Church, having outraged people all across the boards --- not just a surgical strike against the possibly less than 1-2% of Catholics who either assist at the Traditional Latin Mass or would if they knew more about it and/or had it available --- many of whom are in those same "peripheries" that she so prizes, telling them, in effect, "you aren't intellectually agile enough to handle nuance, just trust us, it's all okay". Pretty condescending if you ask me. And TLM adherents get accused of being elitist... And as for Protestants, quite the about-face. We've spent 60+ years trying to reach out to them, and now we're telling them that they're simpletons for having issues with FS. Good to know. They'll be glad to know that.
My understanding is that based on Gallup polls, more than 70 pct of Americans support same-sex marriage, and many of them are Christians.
Meanwhile, the same "simpletons" had also been preaching about charity for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 5, 2024 3:02:30 GMT
Did you see this quote from Fernandez in the full English version of his interview with Die Tagespost? But.. but... but... isn't that indietrismo? Or does "moving forward" sometimes entail "moving back" (unless, as you point out, it's the TLM to which we're moving back)? A person could get spiritual whiplash by the time the change agents get through with everything they've got their cap set on. Hagan lío, indeed.
It'd be like clearing the temple of moneylenders.
And yet what happened after that was the Crucifixion.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 5, 2024 3:05:26 GMT
It gets worse: www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/01/fiducia-supplicans-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/Talk about the law of unintended consequences!"Yes, the two of you can get a blessing, has to be kind of private, can't look like a wedding or anything, and we're just blessing the good things about the two of you, helping you to become holier, but that piece of parchment you're asking for, that thing with the Pope's picture on it and all that, well..." Sounds like they'll pretty much have to.
That reminds me of the people flocking to Jesus, with many likely harlots, tax collectors, thieves, and probably even sodomites.
Several religious leaders were probably looking on and saying to each other, "That doesn't look right."
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 5, 2024 4:29:19 GMT
I'm just going to have to let your last five posts stand on their own merits. There is absolutely nothing I can add to any of this, unless it would be that it is not intrinsically evil to treat an animal as though it were human (whatever that means). Eccentric, perhaps, but not sinful per se.
Arnold the Pig from Green Acres comes immediately to mind. (Yes, I know, "HSD, are you crazy?", just stay with me on this.) I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that there was a single believing Christian, of whatever flavor, who said back in the day, "let's not watch that, kids, that's not funny, that's just wrong, let's watch something wholesome like Davey and Goliath* instead". When I was a youngster, my father didn't like for me to watch The Odd Couple, because he thought, well, it looks like Felix is the woman, and Oscar is the man. He didn't forbid it, he just made his mild displeasure known. He was pretty old-school. So far as I am aware, there have been no such reactions to animals being anthropomorphized.
************
*Edited to add: upon reflection, I realized that Goliath did indeed talk, but only Davey could understand him. Where does it end?
And let's not forget Mister Ed.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 5, 2024 5:29:17 GMT
www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-fernandez-bishops-banned-from-total-or-definitive-denial-of-fiducia-supplicansIn all fairness, a blessing such as Fernandez describes: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace, and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen.” ...would be entirely unproblematical. I would just hope that those being blessed, and the priest himself, would go into this with their eyes wide open, and realize that sodomy, and other intimate mutual homosexual acts that might not rise to the level of sodomy per se, but are nonetheless mortal sins against purity, do indeed "contradict [His] Gospel", and that the couple is committing to try and live in a Josephite fashion, mutatis mutandis. If the Church thinks she can get homosexual couples to commit to such a thing, more power to her. FWIW, and I don't mean to be tasteless, but I have heard of "bed death", where such couples just cease to be interested in carnality anymore. But how common this is, I don't know. Quite frankly, I think it's awfully naive to think that such couples, unless it's a "bed death" situation to which I just alluded, would be willing or able to do that. Much as some might wish to deny it, couples in love typically don't enter into exclusive, permanent relationships with the goal of not having sex with each other. Think about it --- go ask any such couple, homosexual or heterosexual, if that sounds like a plan, and see what they tell you. Never heard of such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 5, 2024 22:17:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 6, 2024 2:34:29 GMT
I'm just going to have to let your last five posts stand on their own merits. There is absolutely nothing I can add to any of this, unless it would be that it is not intrinsically evil to treat an animal as though it were human (whatever that means). Eccentric, perhaps, but not sinful per se. Arnold the Pig from Green Acres comes immediately to mind. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that there was a single believing Christian, of whatever flavor, who said back in the day, "let's not watch that, kids, that's not funny, that's just wrong". I invite our readers to read and reflect upon these same five posts, and assess the thoughts therein for themselves. Peace and all good.
In short, context.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 6, 2024 2:40:31 GMT
One feels that the writer is arguing with himself. That is, the point about blessing is clear but because most don't understand it, then it has to be explained, it's not clear at all, or one shouldn't bless those considered sinners just to be on the safe side.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jan 6, 2024 3:20:19 GMT
That guy's a good writer. I LOLed several times.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2024 5:32:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jan 6, 2024 17:48:14 GMT
If all the other churches express extremely negative sentiments towards LGBTQ, then Stowe probably sees himself as being pastoral. And maybe he is being that way.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2024 21:02:26 GMT
If all the other churches express extremely negative sentiments towards LGBTQ, then Stowe probably sees himself as being pastoral. And maybe he is being that way. Lexington itself is pretty cosmopolitan, many wealthy and/or highly educated people, high standard of living, but the rest of the diocese is comprised largely of poor, rural counties where hard, hard religion, of the fundamentalist and Pentecostalist stripes, runs wide and deep, and is so embedded into the culture that the region would be impossible to comprehend without it. Many communities have seen pitched battles as to whether alcohol would be sold there or not. I have just had to wonder how a bishop such as Stowe is seen in those parts by such people, assuming they are aware of him and what he stands for. I don't maintain that a compassionate, pastoral approach to LGBT people, wherever they may be, isn't a good thing --- of course it is. And one strength of the Catholic Church is that she is able to distinguish between unwanted and possibly even inborn homosexual orientations, and acting out that orientation in a sexual fashion. Some fundamentalist Christians simply oppose "homosexuality", and the person who comes "under conviction", as they say, and seeks salvation in one of those sects, has to resolve the dilemma of still having these inclinations --- "pray the gay away" fails far more often than it succeeds --- and seeking salvation in Christ. Catholicism doesn't present this problem. You could be a perfectly good, even saintly Catholic and have lifelong and deep-seated, unwanted, and exclusive SSA, and you could either choose to keep it to yourself, or to share it (I'd keep it to myself if I were gay, but everyone's different), and it would be no issue whatsoever. (Nothing in Catholicism presupposes that a person will necessarily get married or even have opposite-sex romantic relationships.) In some other religious traditions, it would be a case of self-loathing and endless guilt.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2024 21:24:56 GMT
|
|