Posted on 10/14/2014 11:52:54 AM PDT by Teófilo
Brethren, Peace be with you in Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
| Inaugural Mass of the Synod of Bishops in Rome |
1. The Bishops have not changed Catholic doctrine regarding the moral admissibility of same-sex activity, nor will they change it, nor can they change it. Any expectations formulated and fostered by the MSM that such a change is possible or forthcoming or even desirable are false. (If you want to know or want to remember the Church's unchangeable stance, read it here).
2. The issue is one of pastoral approach to people suffering from same-sex attractions. You can call this a "change in tone" if you like, but I've said the same thing in writing 9 years ago and then again 5 years ago (here and here). I didn't invent my own conclusions from thin air, but from reading the official Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality and chastity. If I did so, any person of good will can and must understand that all persons suffering from same-sex attractions must be treated with love and respect, and that avoiding all signs of unjust discrimination against them is our duty as faithful Catholics. The doctrine says what it means and means what it says.
3. There was no "Vatican backtracking" in the face of "conservative bishops" regarding this issue, as CNN reports. Check the Synod's working document against the official Catholic doctrine and you'll see they don't contradict each other. CNN, NYT, and other media simply failed to understand both Catholic doctrine and the Synod's working process with their reporting or worse, willfully distorted their reporting to support another agenda.Don't lose your peace before the distortions and misinformation pervading the MSM about the Synod. All is going the way it is supposed to go. The Holy Spirit is in the details. Let us continue to pray for the success of this first phase of the Synod of Bishops.
4. I'm all for "gradualism" - the Synod's "byword" - if by it we mean to say that discipleship and growth are a process, and that sinful patterns of life acquired by repeated action - we call those "bad habits" or "vices"- be they cohabitation, divorce, or same-sex activity, are not broken overnight barring a luminous miracle; and that prayer and sacramental help, as well as true friendship, mentoring, and companionship, are needed to guide others to the fullness of life in Jesus Christ our Lord. But with "gradualism" there's the temptation to compromise with mediocrity, to say "I've progressed enough, I'll stay here, I can't do no more" while the mentor, already identifying with the pilgrim, will tend to acquiesce. Many are those who hope to catch such a "break", the moral demands of the Gospel notwithstanding. If that's what "gradualism" means, we have the obligation as Catholics to reject it.
5. Righteous gradualism works. Just ask the people who work in the Courage Apostolate. Non-sexual friendship and long-term mutual companionship and support between people suffering from same-sex attraction is possible with God's grace. These men and women who have chosen to live according to the Gospel in the context of their same-sex attraction need our special support, love, and respect. All this is implicit in the official Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality and chastity.
6. The interim report issued by the Synod of Bishops is just that, interim and therefore, temporary, malleable, and unfinished. It is more a summary of the bishops' views expressed the prior week. The document is just a milestone and reference point in a larger process.
bkmk
” 50. 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?
51. 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.
52. 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.”
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html
“Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation...”
It sounds like some of the big ‘seeker churches’ - who cares about sin, as long as you come and give us money? The Body of Christ is joined by repentance, not by “accepting and valuing” sin. Of course, the document says “orientation”...well, we ALL have a sin orientation, and we all need to repent.
“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.
How about CONDEMNING IT AS SIN?! “cannot be considered on the same footing” - what is next, a Joel Osteen statement that the Pope thinks homosexual marriage is not God’s Optimum Plan? Perhaps the Pope can make a statement: “Putting your penis in a man’s rump is not God’s highest possible calling for your life, but as long as you do it in love...”?!
“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”
Great! So active involvement is sin is “a precious support” - and gambling halls offer precious support to gamblers, and brothels offer precious support to adulterers and fornicators. The world and Satan ALWAYS offer precious support to sin - it is their job! It is not the job of any Christian church to see brothels, casinos and bars and say, “How sweet! Isn’t it nice that they get precious support for their lifestyle!”
Catholics like to call Peter the first Pope. Here is what Peter said:
“Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
“As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”
” Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.”
“3 For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. 4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; 5 but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
Except for the part starting with "congratulating", yes.
Many souls actually desire to be in hell - their explicit choice.
Then you're saying Satan needs love and respect. You and Theo don't seem to grasp that the worst of the sinners have become as Satan. The have already committed the final rejection of God.
Half the Catholic Church in the US is Protestant in all but name anyway, let them go and who cares what sort of excuse they use?
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." John 6:54
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." John 20:23
Hey, it's only your immortal soul, what could go wrong?
Contact (FReep) your Bishop! Voice your opinion!
http://usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/all-dioceses.cfm
This is a serious error. They have not committed any such "final" rejection of God until they have drawn their dying breath.
To say what you have said, constitutes rash judgment (judgment with insufficient evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence) as well as the sin of despair. This is precisely the kind of judgment Jesus forbids us to make, since there is no possible way we can know another person's inner disposition; only God reads minds and hearts, and only God is the final judge.
Go ahead and hate their despicable sin --- we all do -- but not the sinner. On advice from the Angel of Fatima (tagline), do not make that judgment.
Steve, the parable of the lost sheep would go like this, according to you:
“And then the Good Shepherd, realizing he had one lamb missing, congratulated himself on having 99 left. Blaming the lamb for its own loss, he left it to perish in the desert, burn by the sun and eaten by wolves, and finally, by carrion birds. For the sheep that get lost only have themselves to blame.”
That’s not how it goes. You can’t wash your hands like that. You are far from the Kingdom of Heaven.
~Theo
First of all, Jesus forbids us to make judgments about individual person/souls. I have not raised the name of any particular person, nor do I have one in mind. Secondly, there is no need to read minds and hearts, make a judgment rash or otherwise, or disobey instructions from God. They'll tell you themselves, as clearly and sincerely as they can. And the "sin of despair" isn't applicable here, as that involves giving up on God or His promises, or denying He has infinite mercy, none of which I have done (but God WILL NOT use mercy against a soul's will!).
Go ahead and suppose that those who have every intention of handing their soul to Satan (since they despise God and Good), will reverse themselves at the last possible moment. And I guess Michelle Obama may decide as she walks into a voting booth to pull the handle for a social conservative in the next election. I'm not going to consider either of those possibilities very likely.
I didn't say I don't ever pray for such lost souls. That is to say, I don't hate them in the sense of not wanting them to make the right final choice and be saved. I do. Just not betting on that outcome most of the time.
Aren't you right there making the kind of rash judgment on me I was incorrectly admonished for just above?
Regarding the parable, you can't bring Satan back.
"They have already committed the final rejection of God."
You can't know that. And there is a good, realistic possibility of repentance for many. But if you really believe they have already committed the "final" rejection, there would be no point in praying for them.
Let's pray for them, and for each other. If I may ask.
OK, almost final. lol
If you change the practice, does it really matter whether you change the doctrine? And homosexuals will not come into the church quietly and humbly, they will come in to take over. They will distribute communion and lead your children’s catechism classes. They will want to be openly homosexual priests. How the synod ends is irrelevant. It’s all over Facebook how Francis the Great will be approving same sex marriage any day now. Tell me, is there a plan to staff a branch of Courage in each parish so homosexuals can employ gradualism to rid themselves of their desires? I doubt it.
Your blog strikes me as narcissistic and self-absorbed (”standing on the shoulders of Saints” or some such). Mostly talking about yourself. And keep up that good Christian charity work killing Afghans.
Why? I think the synod bringing up the issue of homosexuality is foolish because (1) they can’t really do anything that would substantively please the liberals anyway and (2) They invite the liberals to sow all kinds of confusion, so they get the worst of both worlds. But #s 1, 2, 3, and 6 are undeniable. (As for #s 4 and 5, I don’t even know what the hell gradualism means.)
Accepting and valuing their perverted urges?
Hey, Teo. How do you explain Cardinals Burke and Muller vehemently attacking the “Relatio post disceptationem” while Pope Francis remains silent in defending the evil spewed forth by the cabal he has called together?
To paraphrase, has the Holy Ghost “got” Francis’s tongue?
P.S. Don’t even dare tell me I’m far from Heaven; we all are!
No.
“Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation...”
Unbelievable...valuing their sexual perversion.
How about we value adulator’s actions? Drug dealer’s selling drugs?
Thanks for reprinting that bit.
Ed
Dumb question from us non-Catholic types: when was the previous synod?
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.