Posted on 10/15/2014 3:03:07 PM PDT by NYer
.- An incorrect translation into English of the original midterm report of the Synod on the Family may have spurred controversial interpretations of the document itself.
The document's original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.
The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”
In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”
Italian's “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”
The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.
It must be said that the translation was not an “official” translation – the Vatican website notes at the top it is an “unofficial translation” – but it was the working translation delivered by the Holy See press office in order to help journalists who are not confident in Italian with their work.
However, until now only this “working translation” has been provided.
The document was first delivered in Italian, shortly before Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, general rapporteur of the synod, was going to read it in front of the assembly. After about half an hour, the document was available in English, French, Spanish, and German translations, and delivered via a bulletin of the Holy See press office.
This timing suggested that the translation had been done in the very last moments. According to a Vatican source, Cardinal Erdo had to give the document to the General Secretariat for the Synod on Saturday, and the document had been polished until the very last moment, and was given back to Cardinal Erdo only late on Sunday.
That the text is not fully Cardinal Erdo’s may be suggested by the fact that “the post discussion relation is much shorter than the pre-discussion one,” as Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow put it to CNA Oct. 15.
The excerpt on pastoral care of homosexuals has been addressed by critics during the discussion that followed the reading of the relatio on Monday.
The document raised the impression that the Church had changed her views concerning homosexuality.
Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed Oct. 13 that “pastoral care for homosexuals has always been part of the Church’s teaching, and the Church has never gotten rid of or dismissed homosexual from her pastoral programs.”
In fact, pastoral care for homosexuals is well described in a 1986 document, issued by Cardinal Mueller's dicastery, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.”
Bearing the signature of the then-prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved by St. John Paul II, the letter was delivered to bishops worldwide, providing instructions on how the clergy should respond to the claims of the LGBT community.
Far from being a document of condemnation, the document provided a nuanced response to the issue of homosexuality.
The document stressed that "it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs."
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Pastoral care for homosexuals was also addressed.
“We encourage the Bishops to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses,” the document read
But – the document added – “no authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
Likewise, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”
The document also dealt with the spiritual life.
“An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.”
The approach of the document was thus that of reaffirming the truth of the teaching of the Church, and at the same time approaching with mercy homosexual persons.
“Michaelangelo never said he was a homosexual and no one ever “outed” him. Big difference.”
Nope. He had gifts and talents no matter what his sexual orientation. That’s the point. The document seems to be saying that homosexuals have a disorder, but that doesn’t mean they do not have worth in regard to talents and gifts.
“No one knew his proclivities.”
No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me. If Michaelangelo was homosexual he still had talents and gifts. If he was heterosexual, he still had talents and gifts. He was human.
“Today’s homo’s make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
Actually, no. There are plenty of people who will tell you that some big urban dioceses may have dozens of homosexual priests yet those priests by and large do not “make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
“So disapproval of their sexual behavior becomes fodder for the libs and the progressives in the Catholic Church. It’s all out there in the open now.”
No, it isn’t. I wish it was so the obvious problem could be uprooted and homosexuals could be ousted from the priesthood, but that isn’t the case.
“I saw the quote in an article on the subject.”
Okay. I hope you let the author know that he was wrong.
“But then maybe CNA and EWTN are the ones that were “so wrong”?”
Apparently you and them - because as we just saw, the word “sin” is in the document. See below (again):
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
“They need to be more clear on that then, if that is what their aim was.”
And I’m so sure they highly value (or would that be “evaluate”) your opinion of the clarity of their writing.
“Not clear at all”
It sure seemed clear to me. I did not think for a single second that they were saying homosexuals were endowed with gifts and talents that only they would have because what on earth would those be?
Does anyone ever think anymore? I used to think that only anti-Catholic Protestants had these obvious reasoning problems. Now, I am not so sure.
It is still a sin, even if you don't act on the urge.
I was born on a Wednesday...but not last Wednesday.
Yeah, the dog ate their lunch. Maybe they should try Google Translate.
Like the gifts those talented homosexual priests gave to all those Catholic boys?
“It is still a sin, even if you don’t act on the urge.”
An inclination is not a sin. Dwelling in your mind on acting on that inclination or actually acting on that inclination is what is sinful.
What guy isn't inclined toward women?, to put it politely.
Are you living in LaLaLand? Geez. Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.
“No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me.”
No one even knows if Michaelangelo was gay and you’re sitting there saying his lovers and confessors would know when you don’t even know if he had any. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth. Logic? You don’t have any.
The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”
Italian's “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”
This should quell the panic, but it probably won't.
So forget what is written by the Church. The Church must tell you what they REALLY meant.
“What guy isn’t inclined toward women?, to put it politely.”
But that’s just it. A normal, healthy man, has an inclination toward women to whom he is attracted - to have sex with them, even if not his wife. We’re sexual beings - as created by God - and we have sexual desires that we must control. If we act on all of our inclinations, we would all be committing mortal sins left and right. Inclination is not the problem. Sin is the problem.
Well, most pipe-organ service technicians are homosexual. But since they're getting paid for their services, I guess you're right.
It says that “homosexuals” may give gifts, etc. Any “gifts” they have are not because they’re homosexuals, but because they’re human beings with certain gifts.
What the document is saying, however, is not even referring to individual gifts, in the sense of talents. It means that a certain class of people - those who call themselves gay or think of themselves primarily in terms of their sexual hang-ups - have something special to offer just because they’re homosexuals and define themselves that way.
They don’t.
“Are you living in LaLaLand?”
Nope. I am grounded in the teachings of the faith and good, old fashioned logic.
“Geez. Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.”
Absolutely nothing is wrong with me. And I am not “gay” nor am I a homosexual. I also am not going to any length at all to “justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do”. I am merely pointing out the obvious. People keep saying the text says this or that when it actually doesn’t. I have no idea why people are making things up, making false claims, or are just being stupid but I refuse to be anything but accurate, precise and correct. Thus, if someone tells me that the word “sin” appears in the document when it is actually in the document, I can only disagree and point out the error (as I did). Please note, I might question your ability to argue these things logically - based upon your posts - but I would NEVER stoop to questioning your sexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you did was disgusting and shameful.
“No one even knows if Michaelangelo was gay...”
You said no one KNEW. Past tense. As is someone from HIS OWN time. Most likely someone knew one way or the other.
“and you’re sitting there saying his lovers and confessors would know when you don’t even know if he had any.”
If Giovanni Cavalcante or Tommaso Cavalieri made it to heaven I’ll ask them if not Michelangelo himself. Deal?
“You are making stuff up out of whole cloth.”
Not one bit.
“Logic? You don’t have any.”
Actually, I clearly have far more than I’m going to see posted against me at this rate. Why don’t you just give up the pretense of any logical argument and just falsely accuse me of being a homosexual again? That seems to be your level of discourse at this point anyway.
It wasn’t an incorrect translation. The primary meaning of the word is to value or appreciate; “evaluating” homosexuals, furthermore, would make no sense.
I really get the impression that the “progressives” who pushed this through are surprised at the popular reaction and are trying to obscure their involvement without, at the same time, denying the meaning of the document.
I notice the Pope is nowhere to be found (he attended the sessions, btw) and I agree with Cdl Muller that he needs to come out and say something clear sometime very soon.
“What the document is saying, however, is not even referring to individual gifts, in the sense of talents.”
That’s what you’re saying.
the actual text says:
“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?”
“just falsely accuse me of being a homosexual again”
Nice lie. I asked you if you were gay, a logical question considering what you accused Michaelangelo of when he’s deader than a doornail and thus cannot defend himself about being a homo. I did not accuse you of being one, but asked if you were. Big difference, and you try to lie and twist my words. The Synod report also lied to cover up their saying “valued” homo’s (the first dictionary definition) claiming instead that the word was “evaluated” (a second dictionary definition) not the first. This wasn’t a mistranslation, it was a blatant effort to cover up what the authors of the report really meant. Seems both you and the Synod authors of the Report have problems with the truth.
P.S. as to “but I would NEVER stoop to questioning your sexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you did was disgusting and shameful”, you had no problems whatsoever doing it to poor old Michaelangelo, did you. Shame on you.
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.