Posted on 10/15/2014 7:36:05 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Lost in translation. Rrriiiggghhhttt.
I smell ambiguous as hell Synodal statements that can mean just about anything.
Ah, those pesky translations.
They’ve been using Google translate a lot lately.
Here are the relevant paragraphs from the full report — that gives it context. Was “welcoming” mistranslated too?
From the FULL REPORT (just below the article at the following link):
“Welcoming homosexual persons
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”
But this one is true. I read the report as saying “evaluating” when I was doing a google search for it this past Monday. The majority of the stories said “valuing”. It was mistranslated on purpose by Donna Wuerl and his lavendar mafia. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the firestorm it would cause. That was the purpose. I also read today that the very little discussion on homosexuals WAS AFTER the report was released. No one had even talked about homosexuals. It was added in at the last minute by the homo mafia, some of whom were responsible for drafting the report. This includes Donna Wuerl, who was one of the 7 liberal bishops that Francis personally chose when he didn’t like the original 7 that was selected by the committee members. Francis does like not conservatives.
Well, we don’t need to “evaluate” homosexuality. It’s been done already. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
You’re welcome.
You’re exactly right. But none of the Cardinals had even discussed homosexuality during the first week. It was not part of the discussion. The edit was made by the heretics posing as Catholics, AND the press saw it before the committee! The reason? The Synod would have raised hell over something being in the report they had not discussed.
I am not a Catholic but I do pay attention to important events and people. That said, I have NEVER observed a leader or leadership organization that had to “revise and extend” as many statements as the Vatican has during the 18 short months since Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis seems to have a new “Joe Biden” moment every other week. It is troubling enough when a leader cannot clearly express what he purports to believe, but even more troubling to think that Francis might well be saying exactly what he believes.
Already posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215623/posts
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the policy will still be to love the sinner and hate the sin.
It is a pre emptive strike against believers and obviously was written before the conference began
The first question that arises is why the Pope directed the meetings to be conducted in Italian rather than in Latin, as is the usual practice.
...when the excrement hits the whirling blades, blame the translation....
...it’s the parishionate that has to do the evaluating...far as I’m concerned, the pew people will do whatever keeps the social club atmoshere going...gays that don’t insist on a reverent worship, fine and dandy, let them eat of the Body...
...unless that sin is requesting a reverent celebration of the timeless Mass...then it’s hate the sinner, and also hate the sin...
...il Papa is clearly befuddled by Latin...should we expect otherwise...?
“The first question that arises is why the Pope directed the meetings to be conducted in Italian rather than in Latin, as is the usual practice”.
Well my thoughts to that are simple. Pope Francis is not a linguist like most popes before him. He probably has a limited knowledge of Latin. I have met Catholic priests that do not speak it. The only Latin they know is what’s required in the Liturgy. Before Vatican II all priests were required to be fluent in Latin. Francis speaks Italian and Spanish fluent, and the Synod is being held at the Vatican, not Barcelona. And it’s kind of hard to mis-translate Latin and cause confusion, which was probably part of the plan.
It’s hard for me to buy that a pope doesn’s know Latin backwards and forwards. It’s the official language of Catholicism, for crying out loud!
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.