Media twisting Holy Father's words again!
#21
(03-06-2014, 12:45 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(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.

Sexuality wasn't an aspect of anything I wrote. The questions I came up with concerned "civil unions" -- and I was very clear in specifying that I was referring to, as examples, people who were devoted to chastity (in their cases, as homosexuals, meaning sexual continence). I was also clear that there is no way the Pope could condone homosexual sex -- which is a different matter than "civil unions."

As to the theft issue, I'm not talking about individual culpability, but about the act itself. For ex., the Catholic Encyclopedia defines theft as "Theft is the secret taking of another's property against the reasonable will of that other."  It even talks about the loaf of bread example:
Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:For the notion of theft, the unwillingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his, is essential. If he be content, or if under some circumstances he can legitimately be presumed to be satisfied with what is done although perhaps displeased at the manner of its doing, there is no theft properly so called. Moreover his unwillingness must be reasonable, not simply insensate close-fistedness. He is not justified in declining always and without regard to conditions to assent to the alienation of what belongs to him merely because it is his. Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear. Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable. The reason is that individual ownership of the goods of this world, though according to the natural law, yields to the stronger and more sacred right conferred by natural law upon every man to avail himself of such things as are necessary for his own preservation. St. Thomas (II-II:66:7) declares that in such straits what is taken becomes, because of the dire need experienced, one's very own, and so cannot be said to be stolen. This doctrine is sometimes expressed by saying that at such a time all things become common, and thus one reduced to such utter destitution only exercises his right.

In other words, taking that bread wasn't theft at all. The concept of individual culpability doesn't apply here because there was no sin here.

Reply
#22
(03-06-2014, 01:00 PM)quo warranto Wrote: 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!
(snip)

A civil union is a contract, and the Church has never been against contracts in themselves. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman, no matter what governments may say; that is Divine Law. The idea of "homosexual marriage" is a farce. But being, for ex., a chaste homosexual who has a fellow chaste homosexual roomie who is "family" to you, the only "family" and the only true friend you have, and wanting that person to be the one to make medical decisions for you if you're not able, to be able to visit you at the hospital in the same way they'd let your non-existent brother visit, etc. -- these things aren't farcical. They're very real issues that deserve consideration and empathy.


Reply
#23
The fact remains that even if the Holy Father's comments were intentionally misinterpreted, he made sufficiently ambiguous statements to allow for this confusion.

Why doesn't he just say "yes" or "no" and leave the commentary to others....

Why does the pope need to talk so much? I would much perfer a strong legislator pope that purifies the temple and let's all the commentary and manual work be done by clerics and lay people.

All we need is discipline with real follow-through... once the liturgy is purified and restored, and the clergy disciplined, grace can flow and the laity can worry about public policy decisions....

Is it rude to hope the Pope learns to shut-up?
Reply
#24
(03-06-2014, 12:40 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(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.)

So tell us, O Great, Wise and Powerful One!....when did the man Bergolio change and become the sodomite-lovin modernist you relish in?  What cause his transformation into a left-wing radical when even as an Archbishop he considered allowing civil unions as a last-ditch effort to stop gay marryge?

Regardless of your posting of CDF as I have stated before, civil unions is not restricted to homosexuals only and many nations do not recognize religious marriages...only civil (ex. France). In Italy, civil unions refer to those married by the state not "gay marryge". I think it's pretty clear that this is what Holy Father was referring to former, not the latter.

Either way this is something where the we should not look further into Pope Francis's words that what was said.


As for me "spinning" Miriam, prove it or stop engaging in calumny, cause you're acting like a pot calling the kettle black. You are claiming that between Cardinal Bergolio's election to Pope Francis, he immediately overnight became a left-wing radical loon...who's spinning now?
Reply
#25
(03-06-2014, 01:27 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:00 PM)quo warranto Wrote: 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!
(snip)

A civil union is a contract, and the Church has never been against contracts in themselves. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman, no matter what governments may say; that is Divine Law. The idea of "homosexual marriage" is a farce. But being, for ex., a chaste homosexual who has a fellow chaste homosexual roomie who is "family" to you, the only "family" and the only true friend you have, and wanting that person to be the one to make medical decisions for you if you're not able, to be able to visit you at the hospital in the same way they'd let your non-existent brother visit, etc. -- these things aren't farcical. They're very real issues that deserve consideration and empathy.
But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.
Reply
#26
(03-06-2014, 01:28 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: The fact remains that even if the Holy Father's comments were intentionally misinterpreted, he made sufficiently ambiguous statements to allow for this confusion.

Why doesn't he just say "yes" or "no" and leave the commentary to others....

Why does the pope need to talk so much? I would much perfer a strong legislator pope that purifies the temple and let's all the commentary and manual work be done by clerics and lay people.

All we need is discipline with real follow-through... once the liturgy is purified and restored, and the clergy disciplined, grace can flow and the laity can worry about public policy decisions....

Is it rude to hope the Pope learns to shut-up?

I have no problem with that, sometimes I wish we had a more silent Pope, but then again Pope Francis says a lot of good Catholic things in mix with the head-scratching whoppers.

On suffering: “Without the cross, there is no Christian,”

On the Papal cult of personality: "To paint the Pope as if he were some kind of Superman, a sort of star, is offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps well and has friends like everyone else. He is a normal person.”

A homily on the persecution of Christians:

ZEINT Wrote:In his homily on Tuesday morning in the Santa Marta residence, Pope Francis warned that the Cross is always on the road of a Christian, and that there are more Christian martyrs today than during the early days of the Church.

The Pope took as his cue the biblical account of where Peter asked Jesus what the disciples would receive in return for following him.

He said Peter probably thought that following Jesus would be a great commercial activity because Jesus is generous but, as Christ warned, whatever they would gain would always be accompanied by persecutions.

“It’s as if Jesus said: Yes, you have left everything and you will receive here on earth many things, but with persecutions!,” the Pope said. “Like a salad with the oil of persecution: always! This is what the Christian gains and this is the road for the person who wants to follow Jesus, because it’s the road that He himself trod. He was persecuted! It’s the road of humbling yourself. That’s what Paul wrote in his letter to the Philippians: ‘Jesus emptied himself and being in every way like a human being, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross’. This is the reality of Christian life.”

Pope Francis went on to warn that the Cross is always present on the road of a Christian. “We will have many brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers in the Church, in the Christian community, but we also will have persecutions,” the Pope said.

“This is because the world does not tolerate the divinity of Christ. It doesn’t tolerate the proclamation of the Gospel. It does not tolerate the Beatitudes. And so we have persecutions with words, with insults, the things that they said about Christians in the early centuries, the condemnations, imprisonment.

“But we easily forget,” the Pope continued. “We think of the many Christians, 60 years ago, in the labour camps, in the camps of the Nazis, of the communists: So many of them! For being Christians! And even today. But [people say]: ‘today we are better educated and these things no longer exist’. Yes they do! And I tell you that today there are more martyrs than during the early times of the Church.”

Pope Francis pointed out that there are many brothers and sister nowadays who bear witness to Jesus and are persecuted. Some cannot even carry around a Bible.

“They are condemned for having a Bible,” he said. “They can’t wear a crucifix. And this is the road of Jesus. But it is a joyful road because our Lord never tests us beyond what we can bear.”

The Pope added: “Christian life is not a commercial advantage, it’s not making a career. It’s simply following Jesus! But when we follow, Jesus this happens. Let’s think about if we have within us the desire to be courageous in bearing witness to Jesus. And let’s spare a thought -- it will do us good – for the many brothers and sisters who today – today! – cannot pray together because they are persecuted. They cannot have the book of the Gospel or a Bible because they are persecuted.”

“Let’s think,” the Pope continued, “about those brothers who cannot go to Mass because it is forbidden and let’s ask ourselves if we are prepared to carry the Cross and suffer persecutions like Jesus did? It’s good for all of us to think about this,” the Pope concluded.


That's the thing, Pope Francis does say a lot of great and refreshing things....sadly the media is out to turn heretical Catholics into loving him and faithful Catholics into hating them. Hate the :censored: media I say and love the Pope despite his flaws, for as the Holy Father has said view the Pope as a superman is offensive, he is a normal man....and with that he desperately needs our prayers and yes fraternal correction.

I have been critical in the past, but I still will continue to love my Pope and defend him when there calls for a defense. However I will also voice concern when I hear another Franciscus whopper.
Reply
#27
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" by law. As to your statement about being civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital: to be clear, I am not at ALL talking about civil marriage. I'm talking about civil unions. And no, one doesn't have to be married to someone for them to visit you in the hospital, but they do have to have a familial relationship to you in order to stay past formal visiting hours, etc. Or at least that's how things used to be. I haven't been in a hospital in a while, knock on wood. In any case, I do know that this is one of the concerns that folks without spouses and family, but who do have a true friend are concerned about, and very reasonably so, IMO.

 
Reply
#28
(03-06-2014, 01:33 PM)austenbosten Wrote: So tell us, O Great, Wise and Powerful One!....[/snip....blah/blah/blah]

Knock it off with the contemptuous sarcasm toward posters.

Quote:when did the man Bergolio change and become the sodomite-lovin modernist you relish in?  What cause his transformation into a left-wing radical when even as an Archbishop he considered allowing civil unions as a last-ditch effort to stop gay marryge?

Examine honestly, austen, without spin, his cumulative comments: 

(1) Francis--"Who-am-I to-judge" sodomy?  (Hint, Your Holiness:  You're the Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff, that's who the heck you are. You have both the right and the responsibility to speak out on moral absolutes, and to uphold the 2,000-year-old Tradition you are sworn to uphold.)

(2) abortion/homosexuality as "narrow-minded doctrine."  (Is that what they taught you in fun 1970's modernistic seminary, Your Holiness?  Can't have that doctrine stuff.  No.)

(3) homosexual unions "on a case-by-case basis."  That is called relativism, Your Holiness, which your Church condemned long ago.

The list is longer, but I can only stomach so much of his trashing of tradition for so long.

Have a nice spinning day, austen. I mean you no ill, but, like many Catholics wanting not to trust their ears when Francis engages in yet more shock-talk, I do see you as being in flaming denial.  As far as the Pope goes, I'm sure you mean the best, but according to your words here, you do not assume the best toward fellow Catholics who are well versed in traditional moral theology and can recognize a contradiction -- or multiple ones -- when they hear them and read them from this Pontiff.  His comments about how willing he is to compromise with moral theology literally nauseate me, and that's why I can only take so much of him at one time.  It's better for my soul to ignore him because he is an occasion of scandal for me.  Regularly.
Reply
#29
(03-06-2014, 02:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" to by law. As to your statement about being civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital: to be clear, I am not at ALL talking about civil marriage. I'm talking about civil unions. And no, one doesn't have to be married to someone for them to visit you in the hospital, but they do have to have a familial relationship to you in order to stay past formal visiting hours, etc. Or at least that's how things used to be. I haven't been in a hospital in a while, knock on wood. In any case, I do know that this is one of the concerns that folks without spouses and family, but who do have a true friend are concerned about, and very reasonably so, IMO.

 
You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.
Reply
#30
(03-06-2014, 02:13 PM)quo warranto Wrote: You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.

I am against "marriage" -- civil or otherwise -- of homosexuals to other homosexuals of the same sex.  This is a trad forum.

Presumably, one would form contracts pertaining to inheritance, legal powers pertaining to medical issues, etc., before falling into comas.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)