Oh, yeah?
You just stated above that:
Can't you keep your "story" straight, metmom?
Posted on 10/17/2023 11:14:34 AM PDT by ebb tide
The newest version of the pro-homosexual third edition of The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, which includes a forward by Pope Francis, has drawn the condemnation and mockery of Protestant voices, who have highlighted the “woke” agenda of so-called “Catholic” academic biblical scholarship.
Arguing that the scriptural texts condemning sodomy do not apply to today’s “modern concept of homosexuality” as a “possible sexual orientation,” the Jerome Biblical Commentary claims categorically that “the Bible does not speak about same–sex love [sic] as one does today.”
“Leviticus 18:22 does not speak about the modern concept of homosexuality or homoeroticism which in general was not known as a possible sexual orientation in antiquity,” the heterodox commentary states. “The penetration of a male by a male was a way to denigrate the penetrated one to humiliate strangers or the inferior party in warfare.”
“The major interest of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is to assure that males procreate offspring for the community. Hence it is hermeneutically inappropriate to use these verses and similar passages in the Bible to ostracize homosexual males,” it continues, in contradiction to Catholic teaching.
READ: Synod on Synodality discusses ‘pastoral’ approach to ‘love among gay couples’
Protestant apologist and podcaster Dr. James White roundly mocked and denounced the commentary. “This has nothing to do with exegesis,” he said. “This is woke propaganda masquerading as biblical commentary and scholarship.”
“Are we just going to say the Pope didn’t read this part or is there a consistency in the Pope supporting those who are seeking LGBTQ inclusion and having just released a letter giving pastoral freedom in certain circumstances to bless same-sex unions?” White asked.
The scholars of the commentary further “warn” against using the first chapter of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans as a “‘clobber text’ to denigrate persons with same-sex orientation.” In reference to Romans 1:24–27 – in which the Apostle declares that God handed over the pagans to the unnatural lusts of homosexuality in punishment for the sin of idolatry – the Jerome commentary states, “Whatever contemporary moral arguments one wants to mount about same-sex relations, it is ethically irresponsible to use this passage in Romans 1 to close off contemporary explorations of the issues.”
The commentary goes on to claim that “such a use strips the text of its social and historical context and brings it to bear on an issue Paul’s own audience would never have imagined or understood.”
“Paul’s contemporaries would have been familiar with multiple types of exploitative sexual relationships including pedophilia, prostitution, and slavery. In each case such relationships revealed and describe abusive power structures. They have nothing to do loving sexual relationships between consenting adults,” the commentary claims.
The biblical scholars strangely argue that because the context to the Apostles’ harsh judgment would have been “pornographic” parties hosted at Roman palaces, therefore, “there is no indication that private behavior is in view anywhere in this passage.”
“This is as woke as the day is long, it’s as leftist as the day is long, and Pope Francis says this is one you need to be reading,” White decried, charging the Pope with “plainly, purposefully, intentionally changing the moral and ethical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the LGBTQ revolution.”
READ: Archbishop Cordileone, Oakland Bishop Barber issue pastoral letter condemning gender ideology
In his forward to the third edition of the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Pope Francis praised the work and the “service” its scholarship offers the Church. “The word of God unites believers and makes them one people,” the Pope said. “This is the importance and mission of biblical scholarship at the service of the community of faith, the type of scholarship exhibited in this volume of biblical commentaries.”
Unsurprisingly, the commentary received official ecclesiastical approval from the Archdiocese of Chicago under pro-LGBT Cardinal Blase Cupich. In 2020, the nihil obstat (meaning “nothing stands in the way”) was granted by Deacon Daniel Welter, then chancellor of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and the imprimatur (meaning “let it be printed”) was granted by Bishop Ronald Hicks, then vicar general of the Archdiocese of Chicago. The nihil obstat and imprimatur are supposed to indicate that the work to be published is free of any doctrinal error. In many instances, such as The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century: Third Edition, the seals of approval have become meaningless.
In contrast to the present edition’s “woke agenda,” the first two editions of the Jerome Biblical Commentary referred to homosexual acts under the biblical term “sodomy,” the name taken from the city of Sodom, which God destroyed by fire for the sin of homosexuality. The second edition states that the wording of the first chapter of Romans “shows that the sexual perversion of which Paul speaks is homosexuality.”
The claim that Scripture does not, in fact, condemn homosexuality as envisioned today as a “possible sexual orientation” is not a new argument. It is merely the logical alternative to the outright rejection of the biblical condemnation of sodomy, which is the other option for the homosexual lobby within the Church that seeks to impose at all costs the acceptance of homosexuality as a normative and morally acceptable option upon the whole Church.
READ: Pro-LGBT Kentucky bishop affirms support for ‘blessings’ of same-sex ‘couples’
Already in 1986, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), condemned any interpretation of Scripture that sought to justify homosexual acts and lifestyles or that claimed the Bible had nothing to say on the matter.
“Increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity,” he wrote in a letter of the CDF to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, which Pope John Paul II approved.
Identifying one of the “causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching,” Cardinal Ratzinger condemned “a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life.”
“These views are gravely erroneous,” he declared.
Instead, he wrote, Scripture has “a clear consistency … on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony.”
The prefect of the CDF further expounded the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic harmony between Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. “The Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.”
That Tradition, he affirmed, has clearly and constantly held that “It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.”
READ: No room for ‘inclusion’: Homosexuality and transgenderism are sins against nature itself
Against those who call the homosexual inclination “neutral, or even good,” he insisted that “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,” so that “when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
Insisting that “the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition,” Cardinal Ratzinger reminded the faithful that “as in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.”
On the other hand, he warned, “the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.”
Those within the Church who argue in favor of homosexuality “often have close ties with those with similar views outside it,” the letter states. “These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.”
Decrying this “deceitful propaganda” as “profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church,” Cardinal Ratzinger went on to warn that “there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.”
“The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”
“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.”
RELATED:
Synod officials waffle when asked about following Catholic norms on ‘pastoral’ care for homosexuals
Kenyan bishop condemns homosexual unions after Pope Francis promotes same-sex ‘blessings’
Pope Francis to clergy: Decide for yourselves whether to ‘bless’ homosexual unions
Priest to Pope Francis: ‘You are hurting my parish’ by promoting homosexuality
The Pope just set up Catholic priests for hate crime charges – Here’s how
Jesuit Refugee Service pushes contraception, LGBT agenda, and Planned Parenthood sex-ed
Not the classic evangelical types.
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Homosexual activity or sex was sin: 72 percent of Protestants affirmed versus 42 percent of Catholics . Ellison Research, March 11, 2008
Among Christian traditions, Protestants are more likely than Roman Catholics to include most of the 30 different behaviors as sin. The biggest differences included gambling (50 percent of Protestants compared to 15 percent of Catholics); failing to tithe 10 percent or more of one's income (32 percent to 9 percent); getting drunk (63 percent to 28 percent); gossip (70 percent to 45 percent); and homosexual activity or sex (72 percent to 42 percent). - https://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that..49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent. - https://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2008/06/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf P. 147
[2008] 30% of Catholics say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2008/06/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf P. 94
[2011] A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin. Among the general population, less than half (46%) believe it is not a sin. - Public Religion Research Institute, In https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf P. 1
Nearly three-‐quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. 60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. - https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf P. 1
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-‐sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-‐quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only about 1-‐in-‐ 5 (22%) say there should be no legal recognition for a gay couple’s relationship. By comparison, a majority of black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants oppose any form of legal recognition for same-‐sex couples (52% and 58% respectively) (PRRI, Pre-‐election American Values Survey, 9/2010). - https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf P. 6
About half of Hispanic Catholics favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally (54%), while 31% of Latino Catholics oppose same-sex marriage. About seven-in-ten Hispanics who are religiously unaffiliated also favor legal marriage for gays and lesbians (71%). Hispanic evangelical Protestants, by contrast, remain opposed to legal marriage for gays and lesbians by more than two-to-one (66% opposed, 25% in favor).
White, non-Hispanic Catholics express about as much support for same-sex marriage as Hispanic Catholics do (53% and 54%, respectively). White evangelical Protestants are somewhat more opposed to gay marriage (76%) than are Hispanic evangelical Protestants (66%). - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/10/18/latinos-religion-and-campaign-2012/
[2020] In the United States, about six-in-ten Catholics (61%) said in a 2019 survey that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
In Western Europe, large majorities of Catholics said in 2017 that they support legal same-sex marriage [as in 16 out of 22 countries polled] . That was the case in the Netherlands (92%), the United Kingdom (78%), France (74%) and Germany (70%).
In Eastern Europe, acceptance was weaker, with roughly half or fewer of Catholics saying that homosexuality should be accepted by society in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania. (In Lithuania, however, 27% of Catholics did not respond to the question.) - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/
In some of the other surveyed countries, including in Africa and the Middle East, large majorities of Catholics said homosexuality should not be accepted by society. That was the case in Nigeria (91%), Lebanon (84%) and Kenya (80%). - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/
A majority of Catholics have consistently approved of gay marriage in Gallup polling since 2011, with an average 59% approving from 2011-2015, rising to an average 69% since 2016. U.S. Catholics' support for gay marriage has consistently exceeded the national average by five or more percentage points since the 2000s. - https://news.gallup.com/poll/322805/catholics-backed-sex-marriage-2011.aspx Also, After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 – or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/pro-gay-clubs-found-at-107-catholic-universities/
Postulations or assertions of approved homosexual relations: | ||
Conclusion | ||
Oh, yeah?
You just stated above that:
Can't you keep your "story" straight, metmom?
We got guys like ebb tide to do that internally. No need to waste precious Prot time to do so.
Deny all you want - he IS your POPE!
They are their own little popes.
Seems like forever to me.
Pope Francis: chosen by the Holy Spirit working thru the College of Cardinals according to Roman Catholic edicts and tradition.
Thanks for posting this.
And these stamps have quite a history,
“To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission.
In addition, the members of the church may not read or even sell any book that is dangerous to faith and morals, even if it is not on the Index. Wherever faith and morals are involved, the church claims the right of censorship over books. No Roman Catholic may publish a book dealing with doctrinal or moral matters without having it censored. The Imprimatur which appears at the beginning or the end of a Roman Catholic book is the official notice that the book has been censored and that permission for its publication has been duly granted. It does not mean that the church assumes responsibility for every statement of fact and opinion in the book, but only that the book does not contain anything inimical to the faith and practice of the church. The Index prohibits, the Imprimatur protects.
Prohibition of books and boycott of movies have ricocheted so often that thoughtful members of the church, both clergy and laymen, have expressed their doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of the entire system of passing judgment upon the production of non-Roman authors and companies. Meanwhile the system still stands."(Jaraslov Pelikan, historical scholar, later Orthodox layman “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism “(1959); http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.html)
The huge change that led to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was the change in the way books were being produced. As the manufacturing of books increased the production of books, the Church could no longer condemn each individual book. “The deluge of printed works that swept across the Continent from Germany, Switzerland, England and the Netherlands rendered explicit condemnation of each forbidden book quite impractical” (Burke 1952, p. 6). To try and solve the new problem the Church came up with new methods to suppress heretical books. “In 1467 Innocent VIII decreed that all books must be submitted to the local Church authorities for examination and permission before being issued for general reading… The license to publish was to be printed in each book… A similar decree was issued by Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council on May 4, 1515, and addressed to the entire world. It is the first general decree of supervisory censorship that was universally accepted” (Burke 1952 p. 6-7). Soon after this the Index was created. - http://capping.slis.ualberta.ca/cap07/CeraSchachter/precursors.html
“The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288)
“The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.” — http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/educators-and-youth-leaders/lesson-plans/upload/what-my-vocation-junior-high-unit-I.pdf
Canon law places significant weight on such approval:
The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” 822-832)
But since TradCaths determine the validity of the authority of leadership based upon their judgment of what past valid teaching is and means, then "competent ecclesiastical authority" only refers to those whom they approve. Which is actually not without precedent.Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 775, §2.
§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.
§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.
§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.
Can. 828 It is not permitted to reprint collections of decrees or acts published by some ecclesiastical authority unless the prior permission of the same authority has been obtained and the conditions prescribed by it have been observed.
Can. 829 The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same.
Can. 830 §1. The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact.
§2. In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.
§3. A censor must give his or her opinion in writing; if it is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.
Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.
§2. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio or television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals.
Can. 832 Members of religious institutes also need permission of their major superior according to the norm of the constitutions in order to publish writings dealing with questions of religion or morals. - https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann822-833_en.html
He is simply affirming the Biblical Truth and the standard historical evangelical position.
"Young gay and bisexual men accounted for 84% (5,161) of all new HIV diagnoses in people aged 13 to 24 in 2020," and "in 2019, among transgender adults and adolescents, the largest percentage (93%) of diagnoses of HIV infections was for transgender MTF, and in 2019, diagnoses of HIV infection among adolescent and young adult males (85%) and females (12%) accounted for approximately 97% of HIV diagnoses (Table 8b") (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/statistics.html; https://web.archive.org/web/20210707083722/https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance/vol-32/content/special-focus-profiles.html)
In 2019, the largest percentage of HIV infections among all was attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (66% overall and 81% among males). In 2019, among females, the largest percentage of HIV infection was attributed to heterosexual contact (83%).
In 2018 92% of HIV infections among men aged 13 to 24 was attributed to male-to-male sexual contact: 
It didn’t begin with homosexuality. It began with historical Biblical criticism and evolution, which Catholic Bible commentators have been pushing for at least seventy years.
There is nothing new about these new ways - the sin is as old as time, advanced in Sodom and Gomorrah.
A pope who ignores scripture to advance cultural relativism and sin, is no longer legitimate. The Catholic Church now has no pope.
What is this Synod with voters from the laity? Are they going to vote for sin? I am in the church, and I never voted for this laity voters. Morality is not a voting matter. Truth is truth.
Thank-you for the compliment.
I knew from the get-go that Jorge is a heretic.
Mere pew warmers get to VOTE in the Catholic Church?!?
Based on... what?
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.