Media twisting Holy Father's words again!
#11
(03-06-2014, 10:48 AM)Heorot Wrote: Thankfully Francis wasn't 58 when he was elected, so hopefully he will retire quickly. That would be a true display of humility!

I honestly don't care about what goes on in Rome anymore. The liberals are the liberals and the conservatives are the conservatives, sicut erat in principio. It will go on and on in circles until the End. Christ will separate goats from sheep when He comes. All we can do is watch, pray, love, and serve our enemies and strangers as best we can.

As St. Isaac Jogues said:

"My hope is in God, who needs not me to accomplish his designs. We must endeavour to be faithful to Him."

While there might be a grid-lock between conservatives and liberals there is, unfortunately, a lack of traditionalist in the Roman Curia. The former group, by which I mean the first two, while seemingly different in the eyes of the secular world in regards to the positions that they have come to accept, are actually both alike in their philosophical orientation. Many prelates who are labeled as "conservative" today are basically liberals in regards to the Church's tradition, they take for granted the condemned philosophies of the Enlightenment era, which at their very core tend toward these sort of statements, that is: nothing is certain and everything must be debated or given a new understanding so that it appeals to the nebulous spirit of modern man.

But yes, we must pray--and often! While I don't think that the upcoming synod will openly contradict Church teaching, it seems obvious to me that its going to reduce it to a meaningless formula. If the current annulment system is a joke, then one can only imagine how frivolous the reasons will be in the future for spouses seeking to "annul" their marriages and how readily some tribunals will be willing to grant them that excuse.
Reply
#12
Maybe someone should tell the Holy Father not to feed the trolls.
Reply
#13
For those of you getting your knickers in a twist and crying foul that I'm doing a Jimmy Akin....facts must be put straight to avoid calumny.
and I really :censored: resent being called a spin doctor, especially since I was nearly tarred and feathered a month ago for being critical of something the Pope said.  >:(


1- The question posed was regarding civil unions can the Church "understand" it....It DOES NOT ask "does the Church endorse"  If the question was 'endorse', then there would be a problem
2- Civil Unions are CIVIL not religious
3- Civil Marriages are CIVIL not religious
4-  Civil Unions are not just a "gay thing" many heterosexual couples are opting for civil unions over a marriage IN THE EYES OF THE STATE, because there's more legal protections in civil unions (LINK)
5- Pope Francis defined Marriage as between a man and a woman.....that strips out his endorsement of "gay marryge"
6- Pope Francis lumped civil marriage with co-habitation.....last time I checked in the Catechism, that's still a sin but one widely endorsed by the state.
7- When asked "to what extent could the Church understand [civil unions]", Pope Francis said "each case must be evaluated in its diversity".......hardly an endorsement
8- Pope Francis was asked about Humanae Vitae and the Church's stance on Birth Control. Our Holy Father said: "his genius was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism." .......hmmmm now it's hard to make a case that Pope Francis is in favor of civil unions but still against birth control
9- Finally, if any of you think that Pope Francis is someone who's happy to see homosexuals marry in civil unions....allow me to give you the words of then Cardinal Bergolio on his views of the passage of the same-sex marryge law in Argentina:

Quote:I write this letter to each one of you in the four Monasteries of Buenos Aires. The Argentine people must face, in the next few weeks, a situation whose result may gravely harm the family. It is the bill on matrimony of persons of the same sex.

The identity of the family, and its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, and children. The life of so many children who will be discriminated beforehand due to the lack of human maturity that God willed them to have with a father and a mother is in jeopardy. A clear rejection of the law of God, engraved in our hearts, is in jeopardy.

I recall words of Saint Thérèse when she speaks of the infirmity of her childhood. She says that the envy of the Devil tried to extort her family after her older sister joined the Carmel. Here, the envy of the Devil, through which sin entered the world, is also present, and deceitfully intends to destroy the image of God: man and woman, who receive the mandate to grow, multiply, and conquer the earth. Let us not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is an intention [which is] destructive of the plan of God. It is not a mere legislative project (this is a mere instrument), but rather a "move" of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God.....


This should be enough to squash any fears about Pope Francis's waivering on the destruction of marriage.....and yes I just realize I basically did a Jimmy Akin's 9-point defense :P
Reply
#14
(03-06-2014, 11:56 AM)Miriam_M Wrote: I can't agree more.  The more outrageous the statements of Francis, the more Catholics deny that he is destroying the coherence of Catholic moral theology on the nature of the human person, the indissolubility of traditional marriage, the incontrovertible evil of homosexual behavior and unions of any kind and for any reason, and the primacy of life as an absolute.

For any kind of reason? Like even group projects at school? Or what about two chaste homosexuals who want to start a Perpetual Adoration chapel at their parish? Or what of two Christian gay men who are attorneys and want to form a pro bono group to protect religious freedom against the doings of homosexualist activists?

And "homosexual behavior"? Meaning homosexual acts involving the genitals? Or anything a homosexual might do?

His statements weren't, to my mind, outrageous. It's obvious the media run with things he says and twist things, and it's obvious that some Catholics believe what the media say and love it, while other Catholics believe what the media say and hate it. But it still comes down to what he actually did or did not say and what he meant by having said what he actually said. In the talk of "civil unions," my questions in the last post I made in this thread stand. Note that I am not claiming to have the answers; I've just asked questions.

Another note re. the media's twisting of things and how many see the Holy Father as lacking in prudence when it comes to dealing with the writers of fishwraps:  I think most of us here agree that he needs to be a lot more media savvy -- but I am also coming to think that Catholics also need to grow up and become much more capable of subtle thought. The civil union question, for ex.:  some folks would likely see this as just being "a gay thing," automatically leap from the word homosexuality to "anal sex," and from that to "sodomy" and "crying out to Heaven for vengeance" (which only applies to homosexual anal sex, not heterosexual anal sex, and nevermind the depriving folks of wages, etc.), and shut their minds down, without really asking themselves serious questions, without giving any credence whatsoever to the idea of chastity being a goal in the lives of many homosexuals, and totally glossing over the idea of grace working in the lives of any homosexuals, and expressing no real empathy or concern for the lives of homosexual people -- even those who are Catholic and are committed to continence. All that sort of thing goes to my "designated sinners" idea, and it really is tiring seeing manifestations of such thinking in my fellow Catholics.

(03-06-2014, 11:56 AM)Miriam_M Wrote: The capitalized section above is distilled relativism, which orthodox Catholic theology rejects utterly.  He is not just a liberal; he is an out-and-out radical -- to the left of some of the most  heterodox clergy in Europe and America. Train wreck, indeed.  Wake up, people.

There's nothing relativistic in looking at things on a case by case basis. That's the only way folks can be spiritually guided.  Stealing a loaf of bread in order to feed your family is, for ex., radically different from stealing diamonds cause you like how they sparkle. That's simply how life is. People are complex. And life is more complicated -- especially nowadays, I think -- than some folks want to believe, but wishing that complexity away won't help and is childish, a sign of spiritual immaturity. Treating the guy who stole a loaf of bread in the same way you'd treat the diamond thief is unjust. And it lacks mercy and charity, which is a hideous offense against God Himself.

 
Reply
#15
(03-06-2014, 12:07 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
Quote:I write this letter to each one of you in the four Monasteries of Buenos Aires. The Argentine people must face, in the next few weeks, a situation whose result may gravely harm the family. It is the bill on matrimony of persons of the same sex.

The identity of the family, and its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, and children. The life of so many children who will be discriminated beforehand due to the lack of human maturity that God willed them to have with a father and a mother is in jeopardy. A clear rejection of the law of God, engraved in our hearts, is in jeopardy.

I recall words of Saint Thérèse when she speaks of the infirmity of her childhood. She says that the envy of the Devil tried to extort her family after her older sister joined the Carmel. Here, the envy of the Devil, through which sin entered the world, is also present, and deceitfully intends to destroy the image of God: man and woman, who receive the mandate to grow, multiply, and conquer the earth. Let us not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is an intention [which is] destructive of the plan of God. It is not a mere legislative project (this is a mere instrument), but rather a "move" of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God.....

Absolutely.  As an Archbishop.  (Formerly.) Since his orthodox archbishop days, he has transformed into a left-wing radical.  Deal with it.  The Church, even the sometimes loosey-goosey USCCB, has unequivocally opposed civil unions, from the Holy See.  I'll find the Vatican documents.

(Yes, you're spinning.)

Reply
#16
Relax.

While I agree that one should not jump to any conclusions, it seems obvious to me that there are a lot of "code words" in there that many Traditionalist have rightfully come to recognize as being tell-tale signs of neo-modernism. Such words and phrases include "pastoral" and "evaluating each case in its diversity". In theory these words are harmless. After all, it is imperative that pastors find ways to help the souls entrusted to them live Church teaching to the best of their ability, but too often it becomes a license to justify ignoring centuries of Tradition. As to the whole, "it is civil not religious"  aspect, I am going to have to contradict you here, the Church's teaching on matrimony presupposes that there exist such a thing as a natural institution of the same name. The fact that some people wish skirt around this by giving it a different name is of no importance. Now, let me clarify by saying that I know full well that civil unions are done by more groups than just homosexuals but even when we restrict its meaning so that it concerns unions between men and women only, it is still problematic. Why? Because Francis' does not reassure us that this more humane approach he is taking will guarantee that the Church will not recognize the union between unlawfully "united" spouses as legitimate. Everybody thinks that their case is the exception and even if Francis does not openly contradict the Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage, if one can live through two or more civil unions that resemble marriage in all its essentials and yet have it excused because it is not technically marriage, then in practice it will be.  

Besides I have heard very little that will be of use to these people's souls. The modern Church hierarchy spills a lot of ink over coming up with "pastoral" solutions to divorcee's, but very little do I hear talk of chastity and its importance.
Reply
#17
(03-06-2014, 12:36 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: There's nothing relativistic in looking at things on a case by case basis. That's the only way folks can be spiritually guided.  ...That's simply how life is. People are complex. ..[/snip]

Sorry, Vox, that's more relativism.  The Church has never viewed human sexuality as relativistic.   Moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church is built on universal absolutes and moral law, binding for all, regardless of "circumstances." We're not talking about individual sin here but about universal principles.  When you speak about the stealing of bread to feed a family, you're getting into individual culpability.   That is not the issue.
 
Reply
#18
Quote:
Quote:The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

That's ^ straight from the CDF.  It's naturally a much longer document.

The US Bishops issued a similar document, in which they condemned support for civil unions in the U.S. based on these same above principles.  Civil unions are not "harmless"  and  "needed by circumstance." 
Reply
#19
Sorry.  Forgot the link:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ns_en.html
Reply
#20
The Holy Father caused confusion when he makes his statement about marriage and in the same breath is speaking about civil unions and that  "Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity." He obviously believes, like a lot of you here that state side civil unions should be open to diversity.

Okay, so I'm starting to get it now. marriage is between a guy and a gal. Civil unions are open to anything goes. I didn't realize the church endorsed civil unions for everyone. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Not!

Also, unfortunately, The sacrament of marriage is in fact a civil union before the sacrament even takes place. The church will not marry you until you receive the blessing of the state in the form of a marriage license. Maybe the church should separate itself from the state in regard to marriage and stop asking for the states blessing first. It is true that Civil Marriages are CIVIL not religious but in order to get a sacrament we need civil authority to bless the union before. No wonder there is confusion in the ranks. The church needs to kick the state out of our sacraments.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)