Posted on 09/06/2018 6:05:48 PM PDT by markomalley
In many ways, actions speak louder than words. This is especially true when the action is the elimination of certain words.
Such was the case with the Vatican’s recent removal of certain words from the official transcript of Pope Francis’ remarks during his in-flight press conference after his trip to Ireland for the World Meeting of Families on August 26.
Apparently Francis forgot a major taboo when it comes to talking about homosexuality. He used the “p-word”—“psychiatry”—in reference to addressing homosexuality in children. He said, regarding homosexuality: “When it shows itself from childhood, there is a lot that can be done through psychiatry, to see how things are. It is something else if it shows itself after 20 years.” When the Vatican published its official transcript of the Pope’s remarks, however, the sentence was changed to omit the explicit reference to psychiatric intervention.
According to one report, a Vatican spokeswoman justified omitting this exact quote in the official transcript like this:
When the pope referred to ‘psychiatry,’ it is clear that he was doing it to highlight an example of ‘things that can be done.’ But with that word he didn’t mean to say that it [homosexuality] was a ‘mental illness.’
This seemingly small change strikes at the bedrock of our current culture’s attitude toward homosexuality, both in the secular world and increasingly in the Catholic Church, too: Is homosexuality psychologically normal and healthy, or not?
From a Catholic perspective, the answer is simple: It’s not normal or healthy. It’s unhealthy at the psychological level, as well as the spiritual level.
Say this today, and you will be quickly dismissed as “homophobic.” These statements contradict the opinion of mental health professionals who say homosexuality is completely normal and only “unhealthy” if it’s suppressed.
Everything—everything—having to do with the current politics of “sexual minorities” revolves around this lie; acceptance of it is the difference between being “woke” or not. It’s seen as a great advancement in human development, to say that not only are people “born that way” but that God created people “that way.”
This is a death-dealing falsehood from the Father of Lies. So when the Holy Father himself gets “edited” for the sake of preserving this lie, it is truly diabolical.
While there are many ways that our sexual appetites and attractions—and even our willful choices about love itself—can get distorted, if the sexual inclination hard-wired by God into human nature gets distorted, we’re dealing with something very different from mere temptations to lust or mere unhealthy desires. We’re dealing with a distortion of God’s plan for the nature of sexuality itself—imprinted as it is on human nature, on every human person God creates. Physical factors might be associated with same-sex desires (e.g., genetic or biological predispositions toward homosexuality, even though these have yet to be demonstrated scientifically), but from the perspective of Catholic teaching the homosexual inclination is a malaise rooted in the human soul.
Keep in mind that God’s creation cannot simply be “unmade” by human weakness or desires. Temptation and sin can and do wound human nature, but the Catholic Church teaches that human nature in itself is not made depraved or corrupted by concupiscence or sin.
The homosexual condition is a psychological deficit that has a psychological genesis. In plain terms it is a “mental illness,” but plain terms aren’t always the best terms, and I understand that. “Mental illness,” for some people, evokes images of someone truly crazed, deeply unstable, etc. But there is a vast spectrum of diagnoses of “mental illness” that ought not to carry such stigma. It’s just that no one is willing to make important distinctions like this in regard to “sexual minorities.”
Until Catholics in great numbers stop pretending that having a homosexual inclination is merely one way of being a healthy, normal human person, and that all the Church requires is “no homosexual sex acts,” the lie will continue to win every time.
Turning the tide—the tsunami—on this is a monumental project, but one at the very heart of addressing our Church’s abuse crisis, our overall chastity crisis, and our massive cultural crisis.
And, if one single symptom of this crisis speaks volumes, it’s the fact that a Pope—a successor of St. Peter—can’t speak the truth on this issue without having that truth elided by “the Vatican” itself.
So even when Bergoglio gets something right (broken clock syndrome...), the lavender mafia will make sure that he doesn't break their sodomite dogma.
ping
Ping
At this point the papacy is a kind of fraud. A bait-and-switch.
I just wish the pope were Catholic.
That’s all I ask.
He’s not the Vicar of Christ.
He’s the Vicar of Gaia and Sodom.
The papacy is no more a fraud because of Frankie the Talking Heretic than the presidency is a fraud because of Barry the Kenyan Usurper. Neither one of those miscreants legitimately holds (held) the office.
I think it's credible that, as retired Bp Rene Gracida believes, the papal conclave of 2013 was defective and Bergoglio was not validly elected pope. I don't know that for a moral certainty, but it's credible. However, not even a validly elected pope is exercising his office when his teaching is untethered to, or in contradiction to, the papal magisterium.
I'm no canonist, but I do know as a Law of Formal Logic: A does not equal non-A
“I just wish the pope were Catholic”
Being as you and many other Catholic posters have proclaimed that the Pope is not Catholic, we will remove the Catholic Caucus label because this thread is about a non-Catholic.
My reply at #7 clarified that I was speaking not about the validity of the papacy, but the fitness of Pope Francis' words and actions in relation to his papal role.
In no way did I imply that the Pope is henceforth a member of a different Christian denomination; no other religious affiliation was stated or implied.
I think it is clear to all readers that I did not mention a different (e.g. Protestant, Evangelical, even Non-Denominational) faith fellowship, but only the in-house question of whether Pope Francis is acting legitimately within his role as Pope.
I am sorry if I expressed myself unclearly on this point.
With this clarification, I urge you not to remove the Caucus designation. I have not violated Caucus by discussing the some other religion's doctrines or practices.
If this is not clear to you, then remove all of my remarks from this thread but do not remove the Caucus designation.
It is not fair to penalize the Original Poster, markomalley, and the other participants, if any and every caucus can be disabled by one person's loose comment made in an entiely intra-Catholic (in-house) context.
I think the other participants will vouch for this. I am quite confident that nobody thought that my remark rendered Pope Francis a member of a Protestant Church.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Don-o
Too many strawman comments to reply to.
I do not argue with or debate posters.
“I just wish the pope were Catholic”
This seems to infer that he is not Catholic.
The caucus label has been removed.
I’ve been trying to get posters to use private Free Republic
mail to discuss issues with me or to report abuse.
Do not do it on threads as it detracts from the issues of the content of the article posted.
The question of the Pope being “catholic” or an “Anti-Pope” is an inherently Catholic question. Your decision needs to be reviewed regards the Caucus label.
As for PMing you - this is a recent phenomena and probably deserves a separate advisory thread - at least imho.
Perhaps you need to review the guidelines for the Religion Forum. Click on my name at the bottom of this post to see the guidelines on my profile page.
“If you believe a poster is not a member of the caucus, or if you believe the article or reply posts are mentioning the beliefs of non-members of the caucus then let me know by Freepmail and I will follow-up as soon as possible.”
“Do not disturb the caucus.”
And
“There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.
“If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I’ll get to it as soon as I can.”
These policies have been in effect for years and years.
FR mail me when you have studied the guidelines.
Thanks.
Fair enough - in practice all I have ever seen is the in thread messages. That said, removing the caucus designation here is unjust.
I won’t argue with you.
My decision stands.
Looking forward to your FR mail to me.
Take your time and study the guidelines thoroughly.
So even when Bergoglio gets something right (broken clock syndrome...), the lavender mafia will make sure that he doesn’t break their sodomite dogma. >>
correct.
and it used to be classified as a mental disorder, not anymore.
Losing the caucus label makes sense, but I worry that, given the current state of affairs, it paves the way for all caucus threads to lose the label. Either that or Catholics won’t feel free to speak the truth that this man is not Catholic.
“...but I worry that, given the current state of affairs, it paves the way for all caucus threads to lose the label. Either that or Catholics won’t feel free to speak the truth that this man is not Catholic”
If it is the general consensus here at the FR Religion Forum that the Pope is NOT a Catholic, then yes posts about him will not qualify for the Catholic caucus label.
That fits with the guidelines.
But the Pope is a Catholic, even though many disagree with things he says.
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.