British Media Shocked Catholic Bishop Teaches Catholicism
#1

From newsbusters.org:





British Media Shocked Catholic Bishop Teaches Catholicism
By Elliot Polsky | July 7, 2016 | 4:01 PM EDT


The Independent and The Guardian’s journalistic prose does little to hide their horror that the Archbishop of Philadelphia advised Philadelphia Catholics to follow – get this! – a Catholic teaching on sexuality.

Only a “conservative” bishop could do such a thing.

Independent writer Gabriel Samuels titles the article, “Divorcees who remarry should abstain from sex and live like siblings with their new partners, says leading US archbishop.” This title evokes all the connotative shock of incest and all the paradox of married folk not being allowed to have sex.

Guardian writer Stephanie Kirchgaessner titles her article, “Remarried couples should abstain from sex, Philadelphia Catholic church says.” Actually, it’s not just the “Philadelphia church,” Stephanie.

Kirchgaessner’s subtitle encapsulates the heart of bad liberal reporting on the Church: “Archbishop Charles Chaput also stated that gay Catholics should also ‘live chastely’ in new rules issued after Pope Francis urged more acceptance of others.”

Except there’s nothing new about the Church calling the faithful to chastity outside of marriage, and chastity is not incompatible with “acceptance.”

Vox Wrote:Meanwhile, there's this from Chabad:

Chabad Wrote:We do know this, though: we know that among other sexual behaviours, Torah law expressly forbids the specific act of male homosexuality.

And there's this from My Jewish Learning:

My Jewish Learning Wrote:
The sources of Judaism’s traditional position on homosexuality and gay issues are well known. Two verses in Leviticus (18:23 and 20:13) express unequivocal condemnation of male homosexual sex (although it is not clear whether what is referred to is intercourse or all sexual acts between men). According to Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

As evident by its language, the biblical prohibition does not extend to female homosexual acts, though later commentators disapproved of lesbianism. One rabbinic source associates female homosexuality with the activities of the Egyptians and Canaanites, from which the Jews are supposed to abstain. Other authorities describe lesbianism as lewd or promiscuous, but do not consider it a capital offense. The Leviticus verses also imply that it is the act of homosexual sex, not the homosexual person, that is abhorred.

Much attention has been given to the word “abomination” (to’evah in Hebrew). Though the terminology seems callous, the same word is used in Deuteronomy 14:3 in reference to forbidden animals. Several traditional sources temper the harshness of the “abomination” by citing the lack of procreative potential as the reason for the abominable nature of the homosexual act. Interestingly, the medieval book Sefer HaHinuch compares homosexual sex to marrying a barren woman.

Nonetheless, the traditional Jewish position on homosexuality is still difficult for many liberal-minded Jews, and the liberal denominations have debated the extent to which gays and lesbians can be fully integrated into religious communities.

And, of course, Muslims throw homosexuals off of buildings, and kill them by other means.

But they only pick on us, the people whose religion commands that we treat homosexuals with love, understanding, charity, and great compassion, who see homosexuality not as a sin, but as a disorder, who try to help their homosexual brothers and sisters remain chaste (just like every other single person out there). Nice.

Samuel’s article begins by informing the reader that, according to one U.S. bishop, “Divorced couples who remarry should abstain from sex … live ‘as brother and sister’, and homosexual relationships produce ‘moral confusion.’”

If the readers are confused by this out-of-context reporting, Samuels and Kirchgaessner emphasize that the reader should be confused. After all, as both authors repeat ad nauseam, Chaput is “known within the Catholic Church for his conservative views.”

His “conservative views” can be found (in much less cozy terms than Chaput uses) in the Catechism: If divorced and civilly remarried couples are sexually active they are, according to the Catechism, “in a situation of public and permanent adultery.”

With misleading wording like “new,” “guidelines,” and “sexual propriety,” Samuels makes it sound as though Chaput just changed the membership rules at the local country club.

Vox Wrote:
From Ask the Rabbi:


Ask the Rabbi Wrote:As far as fornication, the Talmud definitely condemns it. There is a story at the end of the eight chapter of the Sanhedrin treatise (BT 75a), about a man who is terribly lovesick about a woman, who is single. The rabbis won't allow him to sleep with her, but they also won't allow him to look at her naked, nor even to talk to her while she stands behind the fence. They mention that ever since the Temple was destroyed sinners are filled with lust (they quote the verse in Ecclesiasticus 9: 17 about stolen waters being sweet). Judaism considers that the appropriate context for a sexual relationship is marriage. In Rabbinic times, when men started working and taking full responsibility for their lives much earlier, the rabbis recommended that the age of eighteen was the time to get married. Due to early marriages, young men and women were not prone to having sex while single, but were intimate with their spouses as part of creating a family. In such a context sex is sanctified.

Kirchgaessner can’t believe Pope Francis would stand for this kind of reactionary talk. She cites a “veteran Vatican journalist” explaining that the pontiff would likely not be surprised by Chaput’s statement, given that he is aware of the bishop’s “traditional interpretations.”

Worse still, Samuels reports disbelievingly that, “The guidelines … were apparently influenced by Pope Francis’ teaching in his exhortation on family life ‘Amoris Laetita’ (sic).”

Not “apparently.” Francis absolutely made statements along the same lines as Chaput in Amoris Laetitia (paragraphs 52, 250-1).

Kirchgaessner hides the fact that Pope Francis called bishops “not to veer from church doctrine” amid a five-line sentence gushing about how Amoris Laetitia gives “progressively minded bishops the chance to interpret the document as they saw fit.” Where’s that in the document?

If you’re confused by The Independent and The Guardian’s media’s out-of-context reporting, don’t worry. You should be. Chaput is one of those Catholics.

You know—the one’s who follow Catholic teaching, like Pope Francis.
 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)