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.
And yet, you speak for no one.
Feel free There aren’t that many of them to start with Most of us do not feel the need to hide behind a caucus designation or go running to the mods if someone disagrees with us
Why have caucuses then?
So people can chat in their own echo chamber without getting the opposing side? So people can have a debate among like thinking participants without outside interference? You choose.
I've questioned why as well. I don't really see the use for them outside of a prayer or devotional one.
I don't post anything with a caucus label as I believe in the free exchange of ideas.
It was what Paul and the other Apostles did when they were advancing the Gospel....they were willing to engage in conversation with anyone.
Again with the speaking for others.
When you find some, feel free.
“They are then stuck with his proclamations as if they come from God. The fruits of their own teachings.”
I’m not sure that Catholics see the Pope this way. There are points of contention that make it difficult for Catholics and Protestants to have a civil conversation, unfortunately.
While I am Protestant and get the arguments against quite a few Catholic practices and teachings that Protestant’s object to, I was really hoping to see some objective conversations around what Catholics see as an appropriate remedy when they recognize a problem within the Catholic Church or its leadership.
I’ve seen endless debates in this area and have yet to see much productive come of them. However, there are some major issues BOTH sides agree on—specifically abortion and homosexuality. But it looks as if there is a danger of even these issues being compromised upon at the highest levels.
Cause y'all demand them so you can chat amongst yourself without having to deal with outsiders apparently.
Again with the speaking for others.
I concur with mommd on this.
I post caucused threads to limit the attacks on the Catholic Church. You're one of the primary reasons.
Gee, ebb...I didn't know I was getting to you that much.
That’s fine. Neither of you are Catholics.
I don’t need to agree with you.
It appears that in any case, there is no hope for civility.
What you are looking for isn't even a point of contention.
You have been very gracious on this thread and making it clear you are seeking for information and clarification, and have been attacked as being *malicious* and Catholics are *suspicious* of you, all for wanting some clarification on some things you don't understand about Catholicism.
And as of yet, there has been no clarification, only attacks on your motive and character.
It seems that civility cannot be expected when questioning, or seeking information or clarification, of Catholic beliefs.
She’s speaking for me as well.
I concur.
Amen to that and very thankful!
I don’t need to agree with you.
From what I've read on some of your caucus threads some of your fellow Roman Catholics don't even agree with you!
You seem to be on an island.
After a length of time, at least one day, anyone can post an article in the Religion Forum that has also been posted as a caucus.
Many times those of other faiths wish to be able to comment on an article posted as a caucus so they will post it on the open forum.
That seems to be the case with this thread.
What about it? I don't give a care.
Then I’d have to say that you are misusing the purpose of the caucus label.
But how on earth can you justify that in your mind as a reason for posting when all you do is post threads critical of the Catholic church and the pope, yourself?
How are you protecting Catholicism from attack when by every indicator we have seen on these threads, you are doing the most attacking yourself?
Here are the RF guidelines on caucus threads from the RM’s homepage:
https://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
“Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.
However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
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.”
Courtesy ping to the RM. Not trying to drag you into the discussion, but as per protocol, when someone is mentioned, they should be courtesy pinged. I don’t see that being a mod allows an exemption from that. Or would you prefer to not be pinged every time we talk about the RF guidelines?
Well, when you challenged her about speaking for others, it sure spoke volumes that you did.
And I did not post that for your benefit alone.
I posted it for HER.
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.