Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unions
LifeSite News ^ | March 17, 2021 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 03/18/2021 5:06:43 PM PDT by ebb tide

The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unions

Monday saw big news from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions.

March 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — How is it that Pope Francis’ Vatican has released a document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions? Isn’t this the same Pope who famously said: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Isn’t this the same Pope who approved of civil unions for homosexual couples both in Argentina while bishop there, and just recently as Pope in a film?  

So how could Pope Francis’ Vatican do this? 

There was big news Monday from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions. From what I said in my intro it’s not surprising that the world was shocked at the statement, which for Catholics was nothing more than more evidence of the sad reality that such a statement was actually needed in the first place.

The famed homosexual musician Elton John was quick to tweet about the Vatican’s hypocrisy. “How can the Vatican refuse to bless gay marriages because they ‘are sin’, yet happily make a profit from investing millions in ‘Rocketman’ — a film which celebrates my finding happiness from my marriage to David?? #hypocrisy.”

The intrepid Catholic commentator Matt Archbold had sympathy for Elton’s charge over at his blog Creative Minority Report. Archbold recalled how the Vatican “had taken money that had been donated for the poor and invested in other ventures, including Hollywood movies such as Rocketman.” Quoting from a newspaper, he noted that “the Vatican’s Secretariat of State reportedly contributed £850,000 toward the biopic, which is roughly 3% of the film’s budget.”  

I have to admit that I’m a little suspicious when I see something good coming out of the Vatican these days. But I always remain hopeful for signs of conversion from Pope Francis for which I pray each and every day. So, when the document forbidding blessings on homosexual relationships came out, I read it very carefully. 

One line caught my eye that made me uncomfortable. It was this line speaking about homosexual relationships: “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

What can be positive about these relationships when they ultimately lead to hell? While the overall statement was good and praiseworthy, this line could be dangerous, I thought — and I have to admit, I suspected an agenda. 

It’s not without reason. I recall vividly the mid-term report of the extraordinary synod on the family in Rome in 2014 which contained similar language saying, “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” It then asked: “Are our communities capable of providing [them a welcoming home], accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” 

At the Vatican press conference when the document was released, Michael Voris of Church Militant challenged the wording, asking, “Are the synod fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asked. “Is the synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?” 

So, could this new Vatican document which is seemingly so good and accepted by so many of the good in the Church be a trojan horse bringing with it the eventual destruction of the very teaching it seems to uphold? 

There is definitely precedent for that in Pope Francis’ history. Do you remember when Pope Francis in one of his public remarks totally contradicted the Church’s teaching against contraception, and then it was confirmed as such by the Vatican Press Office? It is an incident which could be important to consider with this new Vatican document.  

As he was seemingly overturning the Church’s teaching on contraception, Pope Francis did it in the midst of his strongest ever condemnation of abortion. He said abortion is a crime and compared abortionists to the mafia. “Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. Wow.

The statement was praised by pro-life groups everywhere. But in that very same answer he threw the teaching of the Church against contraception under the bus. He said contraception was the lesser of evils and could be used in cases where there was a risk of zika virus transmission. And the Vatican press secretary confirmed that the Pope was indeed approving of the use of “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations. 

And finally, there is now some evidence that the Vatican document was a trojan horse, as the soldiers for the anti-Church most pushing the LGBT and leftist agenda are working on that very phrase. The vanguard of the ecclesial left is in Germany and officially called the Synodal Path. An email communication to the group, which was sent to LifeSiteNews, notes that they will be studying the new Vatican document carefully.  

Bishop Helmut Dieser is quoted as highlighting the positive assessment of homosexuality by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. “On the one hand, it is assumed and thus recognized that there are homosexual couple relationships,” he saidOn the other hand, it is said that there are positive elements in them that are to be valued and emphasized, so that they must be treated with respect and tact.” 

Oh, come now, you might say, how could a document specifically forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions be used to infiltrate the church with the eventual aim of allowing for such blessings? In exactly the same way that the laws were changed to allow for same-sex marriage. Remember Biden and Obama, when they were promoting same-sex civil unions and being all against homosexual marriage and all about marriage between a man and a woman? It was the thin edge of the sword. It was the trojan horse that brought in homosexual marriage, and now it’s enforcement. 

Dear fellow Catholics, we must be vigilant and fight for the truth of our faith. For the sake of our souls, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of those with same-sex attractions who, like all of us, are tempted to engage in sinful activities; activities which imperil their immortal souls. 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Theology
KEYWORDS: bidenvoters; francischism; homos; homosexualagenda; hypocrisy; pope; popefrancis

1 posted on 03/18/2021 5:06:43 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; Coleus; DuncanWaring; Fedora; irishjuggler; Jaded; JoeFromSidney; kalee; markomalley; ...

Ping


2 posted on 03/18/2021 5:07:35 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

I honestly had the same misgivings about praising the ‘positive’ aspects of a homosexual relationship when I first read.

When man corrupts something good and from God into something abominable (the Bible’s word - and mine), then it is anything but praiseworthy.

That’s Luke endorsing abortion because it reduces the world’s supposed carbon footprint.


3 posted on 03/18/2021 5:16:29 PM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity ("...for the sake of His name." Psalm 23:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

like, nor Luke.


4 posted on 03/18/2021 5:17:44 PM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity ("...for the sake of His name." Psalm 23:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
"The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated"

Such as? Sure it may be fun for them, but so is sin to the sinner. Love? What kind? You can love your dog, but only to a degree.
5 posted on 03/18/2021 5:29:21 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Reagan/John Paul vs Biden/ Francis. We’ve fallen a long way in a relatively short time.


6 posted on 03/18/2021 5:41:08 PM PDT by MrKatykelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

“Such as?”

This same question came up at one of their family synods 4 or 5 year ago, and one or another of the gay-apologists among the clergy there said something along the lines, “Well, you know, there’s companionship. There are homosexual couples where one has cancer or some other illness and the partner provides care and support. That’s what we mean by positive.”

But that’s a lame defense. I don’t doubt that the same sort of “care and support” occasionally exists in all sort of relationships that are fundamentally wrong such as between a hooker and her pimp, or a heroin dealer and his favorite addict. If a pimp takes care of one of his sick prostitutes, does that mean that there are positive elements of pimping? If a smack dealer is supportive and caring toward an addict, would we say that there are some positive elements in a drug-dealer-addict relationship?


7 posted on 03/18/2021 6:14:59 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

Anglican convert Taylor Marshall specifically addressed thus language and gives pretty good reasons why his hair is not on fire about it. FWIW, Marshall is fully hip to the dangers of ambiguous language, gradualism, Overton Window Shifting, all the tricks of the Modernist trade.


8 posted on 03/18/2021 8:05:10 PM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler

They will say False Equivalency because the other relationships are exploitative, while the homo couple is not.


9 posted on 03/18/2021 8:48:14 PM PDT by MajorKoslo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MajorKoslo

Yeah, they’d say that, but it’d be untrue. They are exploiting each other for sodomy, and one is probably exploiting the other more.


10 posted on 03/18/2021 10:42:10 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Holy Spirit, cleanse your Church.


11 posted on 03/19/2021 3:39:28 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Trump will be sworn in under a shower of confetti made from the tattered remains of the Rat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson