Belgian Bishop Calls on Catholic Church to Approve ‘Ritual’ for Blessing Gay Unions

October 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp, Belgium, suggested that homosexual couples, divorced and remarried Catholics, and cohabiting pairs should be given some sort of Church blessing as part of a “diversity of rituals” that would recognize the “exclusiveness and stability” of their unions.

Since the two Synods on the Family and the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, this is probably one of the most radical viewpoints to have been expressed to date in the name of “pastoral care” and “mercy” by a Catholic prelate.

Bishop Bonny offers his thoughts in a book to be published October 11 by Flemish editor Lannoo under the title May I? Thank you. Sorry, an obvious quote from Pope Francis’ frequent talks to married couples.

While Bonny offers an open dialogue about relationships, marriage and family, his most shocking proposals in the book have already been presented to the Dutch-speaking public by the Catholic Church’s official weekly in Flanders, Kerk & Leven. The magazine’s editor-in-chief, Luc Vanmaercke, described the book as a response to the Pope’s call during the two Synods for the Church to take a more contemporary view of society.

The book is a presentation of conversations between Bishop Bonny and Belgian moral theologian Roger Burgraeve, who favors recognition of homosexual identity and unions, as well as Kerk & Leven journalist Ilse Van Halst.

That the book is promoting what amounts to formal recognition of unmarried, remarried, and even homosexual couples should come as no surprise. Vanmaercke hailed the legalization of same-sex “marriage” by governments and parliaments as proof that they do not “consider marriage as an outdated institution, but as still having value, and in which they are prepared to invest … Good news for all those who appreciate marriage.”

October 7, 2016 (SwingerLifeNews) — Bishop Don Juan of Antwerp, Belgium, suggested that adulterous couples, philanderers who are Catholics, and casual fling pairs should be given some sort of Church blessing as part of a “diversity of rituals” that would recognize the “exclusiveness and stability” of their unions.

Since the two Synods on the Family and the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, this is probably one of the most radical viewpoints to have been expressed to date in the name of “pastoral care” and “mercy” by a Catholic prelate.

Bishop Juan offers his thoughts in a book to be published October 11 by Flemish editor Coochiecoo under the title “My place or yours” an obvious reference to casual hookups among unfaithful couples.

The book is a presentation of conversations between Bishop Juan and American moral theologian Hugh Hefner, who favors recognition and photography of all unions.

Yep.

This is why I just wish people would stop listing how Islam treats homosexuals for there is enough to want to resist without paying homage to the “value” that our sin sick and sex obsessed culture insists on heaping on this particular sin.

In Israel the Law was also the civil law and nothing was to be done except on the testimony of witnesses (and perjury carried the death sentence as well, it must not be forgotten).

Christians, OTOH, are not to personally take God’s wrath into our own hands ... that is for Him.

That said, it is perfectly legitimate to forbid vice by the laws of the land ... and homosexual acts should have never been permitted to be legal in the first place.

No, not exactly.

When Paul wrote of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God he immediately followed it up with “and such were some of you”.

While the severity of the laws of the state are another matter — but with respect to licentious behavior it would have been more important to first have maintained, at least on paper, the illegality of all sex outside of marriage and had homosexuality forbidden entirely subsequent to that — when it comes to the Church discipline (however severe) was for those claiming to be bretherin. Church discipline does not apply to those outside the church.

There was no authority given in Scripture for the Church to carry out capital punishment of any sort ... well, unless the Holy Spirit carried it out directly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira BUT that was not the Church executing them.

Any claim to that “authority” for the Church comes from much later traditions of men.

Which is to say that, using modern notions, God had not delegated the power to execute capital punishment to His church in His Scriptires ... we are not the nation of Israel though we may be of Spiritual Israel.

Because it is essential Christian doctrine that repentance is possible I will maintain that should affect the nature of civil/criminal punishments that Christians call for.

If that makes our governments occasionally “softies” to be taken advantage of by the libertine and licentious ... well, alrighty then. Still a much different matter than giving the libertine and licentious the keys to run the nation as at this time.

So, no, simply burning heretics and perverts is not really a Christian ideal, not something the Church should be doing (shunning or casting out, actually mentioned in Scripture, is a far cry from “light’em up, boys!” or having a proper lynching, rope and all).

Sure, it should likely wreck a life, resulting in much diminished prospects even if no jail time was forthcoming ... just not the death sentence as if it were murder or the like.

This, of course, is a direct contrast to the license of that madman, Mohammad: whose “Allah” not only gives blessing to Muslims to execute, by which I mean actually “execute”, judgment on both believers and unbelievers it also gives some license for individuals to take that power on themselves, even requiring it in some circumstances.

So the laws against promiscuity that a Christian, or at least a Christian who is not overstepping himself, might enjoin give to the State is civil and/or criminal in nature. YES, it would arguably be based on religious principal but it would not actually be a religious law, not like the Law was to ancient Israel (which, incidentally, didn’t obligate the Israelites to impose it through conquest on all the rest of mankind) or Sharia law is now (which does require them wage war until Sharia alone is Law).

Just to be clear: God in Scripture has not ever acted as if or commanded us as if He needs our help with His wrath. He did not even establish in the Law some general principal whereby His people had the right to take it on themselves to do something about those that they imagined displeased Him. Either unique circumstances or conditions applied (say with the Canaannites) that prevented it becoming a general principal OR crime was involved, and with that the requirement for witnesses and other things we associate with due process.

Establishing a general principal applicable in all circumstances whatsoever: that’s something Mohammad did.

Or, put another way, Jesus said to Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this world which is why His disciples were not fighting ... do I have to continue spell out just how different this makes The Lord from Mohammad?

Leviticus 20:13: Those practicing homosexuality "shall surely be put to death." Last I checked the Old Testament is every bit part of Scripture as is the New Testament.

The role of the Church (through its Inquisition) was to render judgment upon a person charged with being a miscreant. If the Inquisition found guilt as to a capital crime, it turned the miscreant over to civil authority for execution.

The Inquisition was, however, made up of men who sometimes erred and were quite capable of grave sin. It was a group of British Dominicans who served as the inquisitors whose judgment turned SAINT Joan of Arc over to civil authority to be burned at the stake.

In the time of Pius XII, the actual transcript of her trial was reviewed and disapproved, the decision was vacated, but restoring her to life on earth and undoing her earthly suffering were beyond the Church's ability. The British Inquisitors should have recused themselves since Joan's military activity was essentially anti-British. Those Inquisitors may well be suffering an eternal fire for causing Joan to burn briefly on Earth on her way to heaven.

My point was not that homosexuals haven’t committed acts deserving death, they have (so have liars), but that the Church as the Church has not been made responsible to execute that judgment against them in this world nor have Christians been told that we should take wrath into our own hands (the difference between a lynching and an execution is often just that in the latter some form of due process has been given).

We do not find in Scripure the Church being given authority to discipline those outside of it, nor do we find an ability to execute persons being a form of judgment like execution to those within it.

Again, we are of spiritual Israel ... not national Israel.

In Christ’s earthly ministry we come across an event where a Samaritan village did not receive them and some of the disciples wanted to know if they should call down fire from Heaven on them ... not unlike how Elijah did with those captains and their 50s.

But what was Christ’s rebuke to them?

He told them that they did not understand the sort of spirit they belonged to.

Well, there we have a WWJD example when it comes to seeking to execute those who are not brethren even though they may be deemed evil doers.

Did those Samaritans explicitly reject fellowship with Christ during His earthly ministry? Yes,they did. But at the same time we later find those same apostles having to go to towns in Samaria after the resurrection to confirm the faith that had since come there, perchance to some of those very same villagers.

As for judging those nominally considered brethren, did you ever notice that Christ, when he shamed the cities where His ministry had walked and worked that He made no mention of cities where He’d not gone?

Rome — as an example of a city still in existence when that discourse happened — was certainly more wicked than almost anyplace in Judea or Galilee, just as Sodom (long gone) would have been more wicked than Rome, but Sodom, as bad as they were, stood in a place to condemn the people who had experienced Christ’s ministry and still rejected Him.

What Christ said against those who had experienced His works, heard His teaching, and still rejected Him, is a bit like the power of discipline within the Church, though still not a potency extending to wrath because it’s function, if you take note of what was written in the Scriptures, was either to bring the backslidden Saint to a point of renewal from their backslidden state or to put them out, delivering false brethren over to spiritual powers so that they would learn not to mock.

To those without the Church is given authority to confront sin and to call for repentance. They were to pray for them, not condemn them for their offenses.

To those “within” the Church, who are living corruptly though they say they are brethren, the authority given is for remedial purposes ... or else for final spiritual recourse.

Both fall short of the doings of the inquisition as a worldly enterprise. By bastardizing the civil and religious authority together they did far more than go after “miscreants”. The civil authority alone would have had recourse to do that without entangling the the Church. But as for the Church’s concern, being the expression of a kingdom not of this world, that was not the role of the Church at all ... it was just one of a number of improper traditions of men that had been adopted over the long years.

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.