FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Synod report: Homosexual Orientation must be "valued"!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A consequence of ecumenism, where non-Catholic sects (which are all of the devil) are "valued," the Synod report ("Relatio post disceptationem") says:
Quote:Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
(courtesy Rorate)
It begins soberly enough, but when it says we need to accept and value the gay orientation... well, to be colloquial for a moment: man, that's ****ed up. I know they're trying to be loving and pastoral, but this is nonsense. Even worse, by calling same-sex attracted people "homosexual persons", it goes directly against the careful language Benedict XVI came up with to describe us as human persons. Nice...
(10-13-2014, 12:48 PM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]It begins soberly enough, but when it says we need to accept and value the gay orientation... well, to be colloquial for a moment: man, that's ****ed up. I know they're trying to be loving and pastoral, but this is nonsense. Even worse, by calling same-sex attracted people "homosexual persons", it goes directly against the careful language Benedict XVI came up with to describe us as human persons. Nice...
It's actually not as bad as the Vatican II ecumenism saying false sects, which are all of the devil, should be valued. It results from it.
The first bolded part is asking a question--a question that in reality is being asked in the world and in the Church.  How it is going to be answered (if at all) by the Pope after listening to the discussions of the synod is what will be important. (I think the analogy with ecumenism would work better if this said the person was being valued, both as a human being created in the image and likeness of God, and in whatever virtues he may possess--your analogy only works if what was valued among the separated brethren was the sin of separation or the tendency to separate, etc..)

As for the second bolded part, that is an issue that also needs to be addressed by the Church when it comes to this topic. Back before the concept of orientation categories existed, there were certainly men and women who had long-term same-sex companions (who they privately may have been sinning with) and the Church had no problem with any good and support that might be part of that friendship, while dealing with such private sins like any other sins.

The problem is nowadays these relationships are being turned into public institutions where the sin is considered an integral part of it.  It will be a question for the Synod as to whether any virtue can be acknowledged without inextricably acknowledging the sin as such and the answer will ultimately come from the Pope (if this is addressed at all--there are plenty of instances where issues addressed by the synod aren't even mentioned in the final document).
(10-13-2014, 01:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]The first bolded part is asking a question--a question that in reality is being asked in the world and in the Church.
But it still causes doubt. As St. Thomas preached in his 14 July 1269 academic sermon Attendite a Falsis on Matt. 17:15-16 ("Beware of the false prophets who come to you in clothes of sheep; inside they are ravening wolves. You will know them by their fruits."):
The Angelic Doctor Wrote:Such is a false prophet, or a false teacher, because causing doubt and not solving it is the same as giving way to it. This is signified in Ex 21.33–34, where it says that “if someone digs a pit and opens the cistern without covering it over,” and a cow belonging to his neighbor comes and falls into the cistern, he who left the cistern open is bound to pay him restitution. Someone who causes doubt about these things that regard the faith, opens the cistern. Someone who does not solve the doubt, although he has a sound and bright intellect and is not deceived, is the one who does not cover over the cistern. Still, someone else, who does not have such a bright intellect, may well be deceived, and then the one who caused the doubt is bound to restitution, since because of him that person fell into the pit.
"Oh you and your male lover want to come to our Church?  Welcome, glad to have you"

"You like Mass in Latin?  Go away you devil!"

The problem is already in how one phrases the question. Not every question is honest: some questions close the person to whom it is addressed into some corner, forcing him to admit some principle that he might not otherwise admit (and in the case of some answers, for instance a “no” to the questions above, would not only mean that the answer accepts the principles, but turns the person who answered into a evil person).

In the cases of these paragraphs it seems to me that they just threw classical and medieval anthropology out and adopted some modern scheme, where, among other things, “gay” is the center of one's personhood.
Of course people that suffer from same sex attractions have something to offer the Church, but as individuals, not as homosexuals. To say otherwise is to say that homosexuality is a source of virtues.
Also, it would be very nice if they added a further paragraph, asking themselves where these little ones come from -- as I posed earlier about the consequences of gay marriage and adoption, I don't think this is something one can neglect: but it is rather much more damaging to spouses, women and children than most of the stuff that this document considered unberable grief.


Other things that I found puzzling about this document: paragraph 13
Quote:From the moment that the order of creation is determined by orientation towards Christ, it becomes necessary to distinguish without separating the various levels through which God communicates the grace of the covenant to humanity. Through the law of gradualness (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), typical of divine pedagogy, this means interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and novelty, in the order of creation and in that of redemption.

What does that mean? ???
According to Familiaris Consortio:
Quote:Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations. In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will."
(…)
This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education on the part of the priests, religious and lay people engaged in family pastoral work: they will all be able to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law, and the ministry of reconciliation.
It seems this “law of gradualness” means pretty much that we don't start as perfect followers, but are ever more striving for perfection, and this necessary means that we repent. What this have to do with progressive revelation??

Paragraphs 46-48 seems to imply that they are indeed going ahead with the communion for remarried persons.
Paragraph 48 is specially troubling because, I speculate (tin foil hat on) that this objection was answered, but whoever wrote this document just ignored and suggested “further study”.
It is specially troubling because it affects everybody: people in moral sin can make spiritual communion. If this is an argument for remarrieds, its also an argument for murderers, active homosexuals, etc.
A tragedy, really.
(10-13-2014, 01:27 PM)Geremia Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-13-2014, 01:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]The first bolded part is asking a question--a question that in reality is being asked in the world and in the Church.
But it still causes doubt. As St. Thomas preached in his 14 July 1269 academic sermon Attendite a Falsis on Matt. 17:15-16 ("Beware of the false prophets who come to you in clothes of sheep; inside they are ravening wolves. You will know them by their fruits."):
The Angelic Doctor Wrote:Such is a false prophet, or a false teacher, because causing doubt and not solving it is the same as giving way to it. This is signified in Ex 21.33–34, where it says that “if someone digs a pit and opens the cistern without covering it over,” and a cow belonging to his neighbor comes and falls into the cistern, he who left the cistern open is bound to pay him restitution. Someone who causes doubt about these things that regard the faith, opens the cistern. Someone who does not solve the doubt, although he has a sound and bright intellect and is not deceived, is the one who does not cover over the cistern. Still, someone else, who does not have such a bright intellect, may well be deceived, and then the one who caused the doubt is bound to restitution, since because of him that person fell into the pit.

If it's just left this way in the final document, then what you say here would probably apply.  We'll see if the cistern is left open or not.
(10-13-2014, 02:02 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Other things that I found puzzling about this document: paragraph 13
Quote:From the moment that the order of creation is determined by orientation towards Christ, it becomes necessary to distinguish without separating the various levels through which God communicates the grace of the covenant to humanity. Through the law of gradualness (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), typical of divine pedagogy, this means interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and novelty, in the order of creation and in that of redemption.

What does that mean? ???
According to Familiaris Consortio:
Quote:Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations. In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will."
(…)
This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education on the part of the priests, religious and lay people engaged in family pastoral work: they will all be able to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law, and the ministry of reconciliation.
It seems this “law of gradualness” means pretty much that we don't start as perfect followers, but are ever more striving for perfection, and this necessary means that we repent. What this have to do with progressive revelation??
Yes, I've heard people advocating "gradualism" for this Sin-od. They mean it in the sense that people can live in sin so that they can move toward holiness. It's nothing but using justifying evil means to achieve good ends.
(10-13-2014, 12:39 PM)Geremia Wrote: [ -> ]A consequence of ecumenism, where non-Catholic sects (which are all of the devil) are "valued," the Synod report ("Relatio post disceptationem") says:
Quote:Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
(courtesy Rorate)

My first reaction when I first saw this report was, "You've got to be kidding me!"  Sigh.  I suppose this is the state our Church is in.  Sad, but true.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9