Posted on 11/12/2015 11:00:15 PM PST by redleghunter
Analysis
Nov. 12, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - A Dominican friar, Fr. Adriano Oliva, has celebrated the 800th anniversary of his religious order with a book about “the Church, the divorced and remarried, and homosexual couples.â€
Amours (“Lovesâ€) is a study of St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love and aims to show that the “Angelic Doctor†recognized the “natural†character of homosexuality. In the wake of the Synod on the family, Oliva pleads for new ways of welcoming divorced and remarried and homosexual couples into the Church and of recognizing their unions in civil law.
His editor, the “editions du Cerf†publishing house, is the historic Dominican editor in France, founded at the request of Pope Pius XI in 1929. It still functions under religious supervision.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Maybe Catholics should follow Christ.
Instead of the plethora of humans they idolize and emulate. They embrace any and all humans and keep Jesus at arms length, considering Him virtually unapproachable.
What a novel concept.......
So that precludes married couples having sex just for the fun of it.
Yes, God did command them to be fruitful and multiply, but sex was GOD'S idea, not man's. And claiming that sex was just for procreation also denigrates that gift of intimacy God gave married couples.
By that thinking, then any couple not capable of having children should not be having sex because sex for sexual pleasure alone is perverse and unnatural. Right?
Lots of couples past menopause will not be happy to hear that.
Nor couples who are sterile.
Maybe he means that desires to do wrong things are possible in the current fallen natural state of mankind. This is not anything that is theologically disputable anywhere in serious Christendom.
Apply a selective mask to that, and you can make the observation look like doing wrong things is natural without any of the other context.
Nobody asked whether the natural is what we ought to be focusing on, and quite frankly that does seem to be the bent of some Christian followings. Natural law! Well the problem is, we can’t take that, whatever it does mean, as meaning the natural is our law.
Neither is normal our goal. Normal is too little. If achieved it would only glorify our fallenness. We are desired by God to be on a journey to heaven, and any lesser view is bound to disappoint.
Love and marriage, love and marriage....
That is the normative view of scripture. Commentary beyond that isn’t addressed. It does not care that you are beyond the age. It doesn’t care that you have more acts than you have children. It does care, arguably, if you could have children, but don’t (to shun a blessing is not pleasing to God). Many evangelicals shun contraceptive methods because it seems not to be fitting. IMHO when they do, that’s the Holy Spirit talking.
Evangelicals, too, can get “church-full” or “preacher-full” — be careful. Getting in touch with the spirit of God is not always easy. And many would-be short cuts beckon. It is a Christendom problem, not a specifically Catholic problem. The more devoted to the Lord of the Catholic part of Christendom in fact, generally live to a Spirit and Christ led model whether or not they would describe it that way.
My point is that sin is now in the warp and woof of our nature.
We and countless others thru out history have proven that the Catholic church is based firstly, on man's wisdom (human philosophy) and not God's scripture or wisdom other than a handful of scriptures take completely out of context...The first 3 years of a Catholic priest's education is the study of human philosophers...
And secondly, the Catholic religion hasn't been able to produce a single thing that proves the apostles handed down anything to anyone except the written scriptures...
Other than that, your post is right on...
Barrel of laughs, that.
Contraception - for over four hundred years all Protestants taught it was a sin.
Now said Protestants defend it as a virtue.
That was passed down from who, exactly, and what proof does any Protestant have that the justifies that U-turn ?
The same is true for remarriage after divorce and several other things.
But, for some reason, the fact that people who were taught by the Apostles said the Apostles told them something requires some sort of "proof" that pleases those who do U-turns whenever they find it convenient to do so.
Thanks for the laugh.
Yet Dominican friar, Fr. Adriano Oliva indicates your church's teaching is incorrect. I gather he will be removed, or censured or disciplined? Seems the tradition handed down is open for debate and interpretation.
Thank you — we would call us a Spirit and Christ led
Theologians have no authority associated with that title other than their credentials to teach in a Catholic school or university and many aren't even credentialed to teach in a Catholic University.
Like Hans Dung, though, such people can have their official credentials revoked or even be excommunicated and the media will still refer to them as an authority when it suits the media agenda.
In the "publish or parish" rat race, disagreeing with the Church ensures publication.
Removed from what ? He has no authority anywhere but in the media and those who swallow what the media dishes out.
Reprimanded, perhaps; disciplined, perhaps; a lot depends on how many other numb-skull ideas he's spewed out and how publicly he spewed them. One thing for sure, he needs tested for a mental disorder if he can actually read Aquinas and come to the conclusion that Aquinas thought queers were normal little butterflies.
And no, it doesn't seem like tradition is open to debate and interpretation. Of course, those who prefer their Rorschach Test substitute for Christianity to the Truth of Christ are free to draw whatever conclusion they see in the media ink blots.
Obviously the same thing is taught in the Catholic churces, since the families there are no larger than they are in the Protestant churches...
But, for some reason, the fact that people who were taught by the Apostles said the Apostles told them something requires some sort of "proof" that pleases those who do U-turns whenever they find it convenient to do so.
The apostles provided their truth to us by way of the scriptures...And contrary to your claim the apostles didn't just tell us to prove a couple of things, they said,
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Translated, that means if the Catholic religion can't prove what it says, don't believe them...
So who do we believe??? The inspired words of God or the Catholic religion???
Too bad Rorschach Test Protestantism rejects what is clearly stated in Scripture in favor of whatever suits the individual Self and Self Alone ink blot viewer.
So, how did what was a sin for over four hundred years become a virtue ? Where's that in Scripture, somewhere in the I Trojan or maybe the Epistle of MeeSo ?
You know this site should really catch duplicate articles. I did look first. I am sure the other article was buried.
Two older Irishmen sat on the bench near their church watching nice Irish families walking to church.
The one Irish fella said “Hey look Tommy O’Brennan and his wife and two kids. He must be bout 35 years old. Poor fella, must of been memorable those two, if ya get what I mean” he said with a Wink. Then the other Irish fella said “Oh deary me, there’s the O’Duffy clan. Beautiful family! All 11 youngsters and one in the oven. Well we know what they’d been doing once a year;)
I understand...church discipline is lacking these days.
Does he directly quote Aquinas?
Thank you for your charitable understatement.
You have to use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer or even an ax — something at least fine enough to pierce to the division of bone and marrow. Here the distinction is between “primary” and “exclusive.”
The “perversion” enters when sexual intercourse is undertaken with the intent and effort to make its primary (but not exclusive) “end” impossible — sort of like eating and immediately taking an emetic.
We see from Elisabeth and Zachary (and Abraham and Sarah) that a sub-fertile couple sometimes get a surprise. They never said, “No,” to life, as Onan did.
With the loss of a decent philosophy, “consequentialism” soon dominates ethical discussions. With this comes the idea of pregnancy as, first, a “consequence” and then a “punishment.” The baby is not part and parcel of a sex life but something else which happens because of a sex life.
What you have presented as ridiculously rigid is in fact accommodating and generous, while it integrates sexuality into the entirety of what it is to be a human creature, both rational and animal. It even accommodates our falleness, our broken nature. It is only required that we not say, “No,” to life.
It is unjust for creatures to say to their creator,”Non serviam,” when everything we have and are is a gift given every instant. It is, what shall I say, “untrue,” to the angel-baffling mystery of a rational animal to put an ARTIFICIAL barrier between the animal side of sex and the human side. And an argument could be made that the choice of artificially contracepted (or otherwise “perverted”) activity leading to (at least) ejaculation is an act of will similar to abortion in that it separates too radically the “esse” of the thing in question from the desires of the people with the power and the “choice.”
But in any case he question may be simple in itself, but the discussion of it should avoid sweeping rejections and jumping to conclusions.
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.