Posted on 05/26/2015 8:15:08 PM PDT by marshmallow
Rome, Italy, May 26, 2015 / 03:01 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- While the Synod of Bishops' ordinary council gathered to discuss the upcoming Synod on the Family this week, a private group of bishops and experts convened behind closed doors in Rome to consider the most controversial issues at the synod, particularly support of gay unions and Communion for the divorced and remarried.
Pope Francis chaired the May 25-26 meeting of the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops, which is preparing for this October's synod on “the vocation and mission of the family in the Church and in contemporary world.”
The council, meeting at the Vatican, examined the synod's instrumentum laboris, or working document, which was produced by last year's Synod of Bishops, and integrated it with the responses to questions which were sent to dioceses worldwide.
“An extensive and detailed study of the text has generated proposals and contributions for its integration and improvement,” the Vatican Information Service noted, adding that the working document's final text will be prepared and translated by the Secretariat General within the next few weeks.
The council also considered modifications to the synod's modus operandi.
The Synod of Bishops' secretary general, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri – who was appointed in September 2013 – had changed the synod's working rules.
Prior to Cardinal Baldisseri's leadership, the synod had provided summaries in many languages of each scheduled intervention from the synod fathers.
That system was suppressed under Cardinal Baldisseri, replaced with a brief summary presented daily by Holy See press officer Fr. Federico Lombardi.
In the face of criticism that this change negatively affected the synod's transparency, Cardinal Baldisseri claimed that “information is provided by a verbal summary” and is transparent, and that synod fathers were “not forbidden to speak to the press,” though they were prohibited......
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Pushing for whose acceptance? Man’s or God’s?
If this is so and it becomes canon law, they excommunicated me.
Wait and see.
Sometimes I think the Pope is too liberal for my taste. am I wrong?
nope not at all. Between this insanity and China threatening over the China Sea and the Middle East in flames, the world is in a bad spot.and this time the world has lots of nukes. and we have a week leader at best and a traitor at worst
Things are quite out of hand in Rome. There are cardinals galore who oppose all of this foolishness and will not support the radicals. No matter if Pope Francis convenes a synod a month, he can not even hope to squeak out a win for evil. Not quite yet, anyway.
The lot of these robed zealots for evil need to leave the Church and go be what they are, elsewhere, protestants to the Church. Be gone.
At least look at the counter-evidence.
Vaticanista Sandro Magister, writing for the Italian L’Espresso magazine, notes that since the extraordinary synod last October, Pope Francis has spoken out on questions like abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and contraception 40 times -- 40 times -- “without swerving a millimetre from the strict teaching of his predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.” And, adds Magister, Francis has said “not a single word in support of the innovators” who want to “soften” doctrine or pastoral practice on these issues.
[BTW, Magister may be skewed in his interpretation. But he is highly-regarded as a journalist, he has quite a good track record in his published conclusions. I have never found him in error in his reporting of facts.
“The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.”
How in God’s name does that square up with Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II’s teachings on abortion? All that can be said for Sandro Magister is that Pope Francis is too smart (Jesuitical?) to directly state a heresy... but oh, can he continually imply them with every breath he takes!
Oh brother! This is going to be a long ponticate!
He's clearly becoming emboldened in that regard.
An interesting Scriptural perspective:
There are four especially grave offenses which are traditionally classified (on the basis of Biblical texts) as "Sins Which Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance":
Ezekiel 16:48-51:
As I live—oracle of the Lord God—I swear
that your sister Sodom with her daughters
have not done the things
you and your daughters have done!
Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters were proud,
sated with food, complacent in prosperity.
They did not give any help
to the poor and needy.
Instead, they became arrogant
and committed abominations before me;
then, as you have seen, I removed them.
From Genesis 19:
1] And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of the city. And seeing them, he rose up and went to meet them: and worshipped prostrate to the ground, [2] And said: I beseech you, my lords, turn in to the house of your servant, and lodge there: wash your feet, and in the morning you shall go on your way. And they said: No, but we will abide in the street. [3] He pressed them very much to turn in unto him: and when they were come into his house, he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread and they ate: [4] But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. [5] And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:
[6] Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: [7] Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. [8] I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof. [9] But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a, stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors. [10] And behold the men put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door..."
---------------------------
From Fr. John Zuhlsdorfs' blog:
"A Sin That Cries Out To Heaven: Sodomy, Homosexual Acts"
Over at St. Peter’s List there is a great explanation of the Sins That Cry Out To Heaven, namely willful murder (the blood of Abel), the sin of Sodom (the sin of Sodom), oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their wages.
I bring to your special attention the description of the Sin of Sodom, which concerns homosexual acts. Yes, it does. The point is made is that the Sodomites did commit other sins, but God destroyed Sodom because of sodomy, homosexual acts, which are an “abomination” deserving of punishment from God. St. Peter’s List makes use of some material by my friend Msgr. Charles Pope.
I warmly recommend a complete reading of the whole post, but here is the section on Sodomy, homosexual acts, which are Sins That Cry Out To Heaven:
2. The Sin of Sodom
And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. – Gen. 18:20-21
The “Sin of Sodom” is described as “carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.”3 Given modernity’s substitution of God and Nature with the will of the individual as an autonomous moral universe, sodomy – more specifically active homosexuality, not orientation – has become part of the new post-Christian norm. [norm! Go against that “norm” and you will receive threats of violence. You will be persecuted and hounded, from outside of the Church and, now, within.] Neither Divine Law nor Natural Law form an external guide for the modern man; thus, the only boundary of autonomous individual is the autonomy of another. The boundary for what is and is not moral appears to be consent. Consequently, moral dialogue has been flattened to mere platitudes, [well put] e.g., this isn’t hurting anyone, [it is does] it’s my body [your body isn’t your “property”] and my choice, love is love. [It isn’t love.] Many often comment on the modern West’s apparent lack of morality, but few comment on the fact the West has lost the vocabulary to even discuss on morality.4 [As Chesterton put it, modern man has not only lost his way, he has lost his address.]
A few distinctions. [Qui distinguit bene docet.] First, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue, [nor is it a civil rights issue!] it is a rational and philosophical one. Considerations of marriage as a natural institution, the moral import of natural law, and the harmony between unity and procreation in sex are all within the purview of the natural virtues and reason; however, as geology and astronomy may both tell us the Earth is round, so too can the two sciences of theology and philosophy tell us the same thing.5 For example, no one holds that the commandment thou shall not murder was unknown before God revealed it on Mt. Sinai. It was revelation confirming reason, a demonstration of the greater truth that grace perfects nature.
The discussion for this list is less about same-sex marriage and more about a proper interpretation of Scripture. It is a conversation about those who do see Sacred Scripture as a moral authority, but attempt to harmonize their modernist views on sexuality with the Holy Bible. [That is, to twist Scripture to the point that it becomes unrecognizable.] Typically, this leads to “new” interpretations of Scriptures on homosexuality. These interpretations are often weak and out of context, but since they serve the end that people want people follow them. A tenuous intellectual argument will always serve as long as it achieves the end people desire, especially if that end is wrapped in autonomy and sexual gratification. [That’s what it comes down to.]
On the Interpretation of Hospitality Violations
[NB. This is what we got in seminary.] Those who argue that Sodom and Gomorrah should be understood outside any homosexual context often submit that the divine judgment of those cities was due to violations of Ancient Near East hospitality laws. In The Sin of Sodom & Gomorrah is not about Hospitality, the good Msgr. Pope offers a strong rebuttal. In part:
First there is a text from Ezekiel:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50) Now this is the text used most often by those who deny any homosexual context in the sin of Sodom. And, to be fair, it does add a dimension to the outcry God hears. There are clearly additional sins at work in the outcry: pride, excess or greed, and indifference to the poor and needy. [Thus, the Sodomites were sinning in other ways as well.] But there are also mentioned here unspecified “abominations.” The Hebrew word is תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) which refers to any number of things God considers especially detestable, such as worshiping idols, immolating children, wrongful marriage [! such as incest and adultery] and also homosexual acts. For example, Leviticus 18:22 uses the word in this context: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.6 [How is this difficult?]
But of itself, this text from Ezekiel does remind us that widespread homosexuality is not the only sin of Sodom. And while the abomination mentioned here may not be specified exactly, there is another Scriptural text that does specify things more clearly for us. It is from the Letter of Jude: [the inspired Word of God…]
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)
And thus it is specified that the central sin of Sodom involved “sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and perversion (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας – literally having departed to strange or different flesh).” And this would comport with the description of widespread homosexual practice in Sodom wherein the practitioners of this sin are described in Genesis 19 as including, “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old.”
Hence we see that, while we should avoid seeing the sin of Sodom as only widespread homosexual acts (for what city has only one sin?), we cannot avoid that the Scriptures do teach that homosexual acts are central to the sins of Sodom which cry to heaven for vengeance, and for which God saw fit to bring a fiery end.
Genesis 19 speaks plainly of the sin, Ezekiel 16 broadens the description but retains the word “abomination,” and Jude 7 clearly attests to sexual perversion as being the central sin with which Sodom and Gomorrah were connected.
One of the takeaways from the good monsignor’s commentary is that sexual perversion is not the only sin of which Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty. [NB] Many allow themselves to be confused by arguments that attempt to replace the primary sin (sexual perversion in a homosexual context) with the secondary sins.7 And while the discussion here is not necessarily why homosexuality is a sin that cries to heaven, it should serve to clarify that it is impossible to read the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative outside a homosexual context. [Commit that to memory.]
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/a-sin-that-cries-out-to-heaven-sodomy-homosexual-acts/
I'm not reading it outside of a homosexual context. I'm reading it within the Biblical context.
Nor does Ezekiel read it outside of a homosexual context. You may notice this is one of the verses I have bolded:
"Instead, they became arrogantI am confident that by "abominations" he is referring to homosexual vice.
and committed abominations before me;
then, as you have seen, I removed them."
It is not unusual in the sweep of the Judeo-Christian moral vision, to associate sexual vice, economic oppression, and idolatry/apostasy as tightly-bound offenses.
In fact, it was a commonplace, I have read, for Medieval homilists to focus in on this sin triad: luxury-usury-sodomy.
One never hears of usury anymore; as for luxury and sodomy, they are commonly, and demonically, regarded as desiderata.
Ah, yes... and let’s not forget that citing Ex 2 and James 5, Rerum Novarum insisted that the importation of foreign laborers for the purpose of suppressing wages is a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. But Francis, who used to warn about taking migrant farmworkers from Uraguay is now hugely pro-illegal-immigration.
We're in absolute agreement on this.
Nevertheless, from a moral point of view, sheltering the refugee and trafficking cheap labor are two different things The later may often try to don the fig-leaf of the former, and that is truly disgusting. Detestable. But you and I both, as well as Pope Francis, I think, could see that the two things are not only distinguishable, but opposites.
What you do with a horde of Somalis in Minneapolis, or a horde of Salvadorean in Adams Morgan, I do not know. Don't think I don't see the actually terrifying problems, which I have discussed on other posts.
I gave Fr. Bascio's book to my pastor.
Very difficult problems. Not to be solved by "good intentions" and naivete.
Nevertheless, taking in desperate refugees who are fleeing from war, rape, murder and destitution, in order to give them compassionate help, is different from importing foreign labor for the purpose of suppressing wages.
As different as Heaven and Hell.
In fact, it was a commonplace, I have read, for Medieval homilists to focus in on this sin triad: luxury-usury-sodomy.
Equating homosexual acts with sins less abhorrent to God is a tactic employed by those seeking to normalize homosexual relations within the Church. They are also attempting, with an increasing lack of subtlety, to equate sodomy with heterosexual behavior. The fact remains that God did not “rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven" as a punishment for ‘usury” or “luxury”, but in response to the unnatural acts committed in those places. The distinction is an important one, particularly in light of the fact that we are reading here about a 'Shadow Council' comprised of high-ranking churchmen attempting to push acceptance of "gay unions".
If such charges could reasonably be made of me --- me and my buddy Ezechiel :o) --- the could be made double-down-definitely against Jesus in the superb 5th chapter of Matthew. In the particular section I'm thinking of, you have the phrase repeated, "But I say to you"; thus their designation as he “Six Antitheses.”
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.If Jesus does not shrink back from teaching, that if you call your brother You fool' or marry a divorcee, you will be liable to fiery Gehenna, the intent is just the opposite of rhetorical minimizing: the intent is not to say that murder and adultery are 'minor', but that anger and divorce/remarriage are 'major'.“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ... It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna."
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all...Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you... So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Similarly, Ezechiel: it's not that homosexual vice is as 'minor' as luxury in the face of desperate want, but that such luxury is a 'major' as anal penetration (on a male or a female), remarriage after divorce, masturbation, contraception, acts of miscellaneous perversion, or any of the other acts which are so often covered in the NT under one single, unifying, catch-all Greek noun, "porneia."
But Jesus, bless Him, was just into Semitic hyperbole. Right?
Because, if not ...
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.