Posted on 10/15/2014 3:03:07 PM PDT by NYer
There is no excuse for releasing poor translations in English when you have a wealth of English speakers available. Ping!
Just look at the phrase, "The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community. . . "
They have NO good gifts to give to the Christian community. As Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life, the flesh is good for NOTHING." 1 Thess 4:1-8 clearly says they have rejected God.
Catholic opinions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215437/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215365/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215499/posts
In Before The Pope Synod Was Mistranslated Again!
It’s not a mistranslation. The first definition given for it in the dictionary is “value, appreciate.” Evaluate is the second definition. It’s the the same with the Spanish word.
They meant value, and now they’re trying to lie their way out of it. On top of that, “evaluating” homosexuals would make no sense.
Your Holiness, there’s a time to be nice, and then there’s a time to, as it were, rap some of your staff’s knuckles with a metal ruler. And when it comes to your translation shop, that time has been here for a while.
Because this *totally* changes things.
LOL.
"gifts" and "talents"?
NAMBLA is giving "gifts" to children out there I guess.
“They have NO good gifts to give to the Christian community.”
You’re wrong. Many people - including scholars - say Michaelangelo was a homosexual. Let’s assume for a moment he was. Did he not have some “good gifts” in his command of painting and sculpture “to give to the Christian community”?
If all these things are always mistranslations...would it not stand to reason that at some point something would be mistranslated into something conservative?
Yet, the document did not use the word “sin” once.
His gifts had nothing to do with being a homosexual (if he was one). We all have gifts, and they don’t relate to our sexual peculiarities.
“You’re wrong. Many people - including scholars - say Michaelangelo was a homosexual. Let’s assume for a moment he was. Did he not have some “good gifts” in his command of painting and sculpture “to give to the Christian community”?”
Michaelangelo never said he was a homosexual and no one ever “outed” him. Big difference. No one knew his proclivities. Today’s homo’s make themselves very known vocally, in the Church. So disapproval of their sexual behavior becomes fodder for the libs and the progressives in the Catholic Church. It’s all out there in the open now.
Perhaps writing and publishing it in Latin would enable them to get above the ‘translation problems.’ ;-)
“Yet, the document did not use the word “sin” once.”
Really? “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
So you were wrong. It said “sin” when you denied it and document clearly refers to “an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.
I saw the quote in an article on the subject.
“His gifts had nothing to do with being a homosexual (if he was one).”
Exactly. And the “working document” doesn’t say that either. The ARTICLE says: “after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community”. And NOTE it does not say that those gifts are contingent upon their sexual disorder. You have gifts (and I assume you are not stricken with the disorder). I have gifts (and I know I am not stricken with the disorder). Homosexuals have gifts too - not because they are homosexuals, but because they are human beings.
“We all have gifts, and they don’t relate to our sexual peculiarities.”
EXACTLY. And the document says nothing different. it just happened to be talking about homosexuals there.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215644/posts
CNA/EWTN article
3rd paragraph:
After the issuance of the midterm report, the synod fathers raised their concern in 41 free interventions, which highlighted the absence of the word sin, the absence of the Gospel of Family, and some perhaps naive sentences of the document which could be subject to misinterpretation.
.................................
But then maybe CNA and EWTN are the ones that were “so wrong”?
....................................
“after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community”
Not clear at all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.