Posted on 08/03/2018 9:55:47 PM PDT by unlearner
LEXINGTON, Kentucky, Pro-homosexual dissident 'Catholic' groups see in Pope Francis' ‘changing’ of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty the hope that the Church will one day also change its teaching against homosexuality.
New Ways Ministry called the change in the Catechism proof that "Church teaching can change."
"It's important for Catholic advocates for LGBT equality to take note of this change because for decades Catholic opponents of LGBT equality argued that it is impossible to change church teaching. They often pointed to the fact that condemnations of same-sex relationships were inscribed in the Catechism, and so were not open for discussion or change. Yet, the teaching on the death penalty is in the Catechism, too, and, in fact, to make this change in teaching, it was the text of the Catechism that Francis changed," the group stated on its website.
New Ways Ministry, which works to "promote the acceptance of LGBT people," said that Pope Francis' move will help advance "LGBT equality" in a number of ways.
"First, we now have a clear, explicit contemporary example of church teaching changing, and also a look into how it can be done: with a papal change to the Catechism," it stated.
"Second, we can see that the process that brought about this change has been decades of theological debate and discussion, and not just a papal whim. That means the theological and even ecclesial discussions and debates right now about LGBT people have great potential to shape future changes in church teaching in regard to those topics," it added.
The pro-gay group was not the only one to see the significance of Pope Francis' rewrite of the Catechism.
In a post that appeared yesterday on Twitter, Lexington-based “Fortunate Families” wrote:
The church cannot change its teaching. That is what so many others say about other topics, for example regarding LGBTQ persons. But doctrine develops. Today’s news is a sterling example.
"The idea first floated by [the] Pope on Catechism’s 25th anniversary last fall to signify development of doctrine,” the tweet continued, “rescript issued today sees Francis issue edit of the 1994 official text, now deeming capital punishment ‘inadmissible’-- the new formulation.”
“Development of doctrine”, legitimately used to describe how the Catholic Church refines and expands, but never undermines or rejects, what was taught earlier, has now been interpreted by some to mean the erasure of settled Church teaching.
Critics say Pope Francis attempted to do that yesterday when he promulgated a new teaching concerning the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying that it was “inadmissible.” The perennial teaching of the Church, based on Scripture and unanimously accepted by the Church Fathers and every pope until Francis, is that legitimate civil authority may impose the death penalty on a malefactor. Although both Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were strongly opposed to capital punishment--and John Paul’s Catechism strongly circumscribed it--neither pope denied this principle.
Pope Francis’ innovation has already become a club for American liberals to beat conservatives with. Jane Fleming Kleeb, Chair of the Democratic Party in Nebraska, has tweeted “Let's be clear Nebraskans, @GovRicketts is going against the teachings of the church. We can change leaders by voting different on Nov. 6--Democrats are against the death penalty.”
Fortunate Families, founded in 1992 by Mary Ellen and Casey Lopata, the Catholic parents of a same-sex attracted man, is a group of Catholic religious and laypeople who dissent on authentic Church teaching regarding sexuality and marriage. From 2010 until this July Fortunate Families was part of a coalition with Call to Action, the banned Dignity, and the censured New Ways ministry.
Astonishingly, since November 2017 Bishop John Stowe, OFM of Lexington has served as the dissident group’s “ecclesial advisor”. Stowe is one of the five bishops who have endorsed Fr. James Martin’s pro-LGBT book Building a Bridge. The bishop was appointed to the Lexington diocese by Pope Francis in 2015.
Fortunate Families was last in the news when a Lexington Catholic church stretched an LGBT flag across its front lawn. The first executive director of the group, Stan “JR” Zerkowski, is a parishioner at St. Paul’s parish, and told media that he hoped the banner got wide publicity.
“This is a church that is open to all people and I hope this sign gets that across,” he said in the TV report. “I don’t think a Catholic Church has ever had a sign like this before in front of it during Pride Week or any other time. However, in other parts of the country we see this regularly.”
The banner read “LBGTQ+ Catholic /Family, Friends & Allies/all are welcome”, insinuating that at other Catholic churches Catholics who experience same-sex desires or suffer from gender dysphoria are barred from the worship of God.
Former homosexual Joseph Sciambra retweeted the group’s Twitter message, saying “Bishop Stowe’s ‘Fortunate Families’ believe that the [Catechism of the Catholic Church] will also ‘change’ in terms of homosexuality. FF operatives are embedded within several dioceses around the US.”
Sciambra, a survivor of the San Francisco 1990s “gay scene”, is dedicated to helping people with same-sex attractions avoid being trapped in what he says is a dangerous way of life.
****************
Excellent observation!
It's as if he's......protesting!
I'm trying to protect Catholicism from a pope who is attacking it.
Thanks for the clarification.
Again.
Just as an aside, perhaps that could be added to the *Caucus Designations, Generally* section.
As if the RF guidelines are not long enough as it is.
I hope the rest of your weekend goes better.
I just wonder how many Catholics break into Protestant caucuses. There are here now and I for one think it is a fine idea. I don’t lurk on them as some people lurk on the Catholic caucuses hoping and praying for an “in” so the insults can begin. More and more I see the Catholic caucus designation being ignored.
Yeah.
Sure.
*****************
Yet, weren't you one of the ones who was critical of metmom and others who tried to warn you about this pope??
Then why even have caucuses?
Thanks for asking.
I don’t need to be pinged every time the guidelines are discussed on a thread.
If there is an obvious strong disagreement on the guidelines, a ping would be fine.
Be aware that if I am pinged to a thread once, I will most likely check the whole thread.
So you can be in your "safe space".
“It seems that civility cannot be expected when questioning, or seeking information or clarification, of Catholic beliefs.”
There are probably several reasons for this. One is that, as humans, those involved in heated debates on a subject tend to bring those emotions into new conversations.
Perhaps many Catholics, even the apologists, are sensitive about the particular matter I am questioning because it is something they feel doubtful about themselves. I can’t speak for them, but it does come across that way when asking questions results in such defensiveness.
“You.. have been attacked as being *malicious* and Catholics are *suspicious* of you.”
I don’t take it personally. I think it is just a delicate subject matter.
No, I wasn't. Once again you are misinformed.
Are you kidding?
We were warning them from day one and all we got was the usual attacks or *anti-Catholic* and *haters* and *all you do is attack the Catholic church*.
The drum beat was that the pope was misunderstood, mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misquoted.
For years.
Until some of them finally saw what we saw from the get go cause it finally occurred to some of them that nobody could be mis-everything THAT often. The evidence finally got insurmountable and they finally admitted that he was wrong, but we never got an acknowledgement from anyone that we were right in our warnings.
Not that I ever expected it in the first place.
OK.
I suspected that, but it’s nice to be sure.
Thank you.
I wouldn’t expect you to take it personally.
Those were just given as examples of why civility is probably never going to happen.
Good try.
And I did notice that you never really did get any clear answers that you were looking for.
Sounds familiar to what another Roman Catholic once said:
“And I did notice that you never really did get any clear answers that you were looking for.”
Marchmain took a pretty good stab at it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3676406/posts#17
Marchmain wrote: “Catholics (generalizing here, as there is every view and attitude across the board) do not care if the pope is a heretic or apostate. They are passive and non-intellectual. The spirituality is felt, not analyzed. Sure those on blogs like to discuss issues, but the typical Catholic is happy to go to mass, get an amusing homily, and maybe join a club or group. They have no idea what the pope said, and if it’s controversial they figure somehow everything will be ok. this is opposite of protestants who are active and focused. This has developed over centuries. Catholics are medievalists, protestants are dynamic. Clearly with a billion Catholics all this could be wrong in certain people. Both the lack of progress in the church, and the receptive beauty and peace, flow from an overall attitude of acceptance.”
I see you’ve already replied to Marchmain’s later comments.
Campion also made an attempt in #29: “The current Pope is free to reverse the purely administrative acts of his predecessors, but he treads on dangerous ground when he tries to reverse doctrine.”
While I’d like to see more substance—something a little more definitive and precise—I can at least appreciate the effort to explain.
Catholics don’t care if the Pope is a heretic or apostate? What planet was the commenter on? First ebb tide has been criticized for “attacking” the Pope in her posts and now she (and all other Catholics) are criticized for not caring that he is a heretic. Which is it, people?
More proof that lurkers on the Catholic caucuses do not really read what people are writing or thinking. Freeper Catholics think that the Pope is a heretic. A very dangerous one, too.
But that doesn’t mean we leave the Church like silly, frightened sheep. Not after 2,000 years we don’t.
Yes, they did try to explain but you still did not get anything clear.
It’s a travesty that so many Catholics are so lackadaisical about the faith that they are supposed to follow for their salvation.
WOW. You're that old?
Fyi, the Caths, and even prots, on FR mostly do not represent ordinary, typical members of their sects. The Caths here are decidedly “traditionalists” with narrow, right-leaning views. They may reject modern theology and even tenets of Vatican 2. Some even reject the “new” (1969) liturgy. They have alot of good points, but they are a minority. As the pope has often said, they are in general people with rigid and hidebound thinking. No one but they obsess about doctrine, heresy, hell, Fatima, canon law. Your active 80% of Catholics don’t even touch on these topics. Trads are good Catholics, but just from a different viewpoint. So keep in mind when you’re online there are various schools of thought under the umbrella “Catholic.”
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.