Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of...the same sex?
#21
(03-16-2021, 08:12 AM)FultonFan Wrote: Are the people pushing for these “partnerships” to be blessed aware that masturbation is a grave sin? I suspect if you actually discussed the various sins against chastity with these people you’d get the same obnoxious, cockeyed stare of anger. It wouldn’t surprise me if part of that group is also upset that the “unions” mentioned are between two different sexes, rather than two or two thousand “genders”.

No, they dispute whether the sexual sins are sins at all.  They know they're wrong, but they seem to think they have the power to create a new morality merely by speaking it into existence.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...-important

Tobin (yes, that one) Wrote:"A rethinking of the mystery of human sexuality is important, is incumbent. It is not going to be done in a weekend," said Tobin as he rubbed his nose while thinking of his next words: "We have to be able to ask questions of each other as we go forward, and listen."
Reply
#22
This "rethinking" has been going on since the so-called Sexual Revolution when man turned to man for advice, not God. And Pope Paul VI had to respond in 1967 and 1968. First to questions about priestly celibacy and then to artificial contraception.

Isaiah 5:20

New International Version
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

New Living Translation
What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.

English Standard Version
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Reply
#23
(03-16-2021, 10:16 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: No, they dispute whether the sexual sins are sins at all.  

This really is the crux of it all. So many are firmly attached to their sexual habits, they can't accept that their sexual habits are sinful.

Now I'm off to pray that other certain dubia are answered with such clarity while the Holy Spirit seems to be acting.... and that God may grant us all a greater detachment from our most stubborn sins this Lent.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Catherine's post:
  • SeeTheLight
Reply
#24
(03-16-2021, 10:16 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: Tobin (yes, that one)
"A rethinking of the mystery of human sexuality is important, is incumbent. It is not going to be done in a weekend," said Tobin as he rubbed his nose while thinking of his next words: "We have to be able to ask questions of each other as we go forward, and listen."

This got me curious. I checked his back story. I hadn't realised that the Redemptorists had fallen low enough to elect him as their Superior General, a post he held until just prior to Benedict making him a Bishop. Yep, he's one of Benedict's Bishops, tho' of course, Francis gave him the Red Hat.

If the Redemptorists had fallen that low, it's no wonder that Fr Michael Mary founded the Transalpine Redemptorists, which became the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#25
You fools.  Can you not see this for what it really is?  You come here and mock Horan and Martin, and celebrate a victory, but nothing was won.  The enemy wasn’t taking new ground, the dubium was a strawman used to solidify their position.

Read the Responsum’s explanatory note.  It’s reaffirming the nonsense in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and the liberalization from Pope Francis’ Papacy on the Church’s views of homosexuality.

Look how far we’ve come in the past 20 years.  In 2003 the CDF stated in Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

Quote:“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”


We have a DUTY to clearly and emphatically oppose the recognition and status of the homosexual unions.  That certainly didn't occur in the responsum.

Horan and Martin have nothing to worry about.  I am sure the same liberal forces pushing the Church further from her traditions and the teachings of Christ will resume advancing their position soon enough.  Cardinal Cupich is already calling for calm, reminding their side of the "encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ persons" and "recognizing, as the Congregation response does today, the many positive elements in same-sex relationships."
Reply
#26
(03-17-2021, 12:29 PM)DNJC.org Wrote: You fools.  Can you not see this for what it really is?  You come here and mock Horan and Martin, and celebrate a victory, but nothing was won.  The enemy wasn’t taking new ground, the dubium was a strawman used to solidify their position.

Read the Responsum’s explanatory note.  It’s reaffirming the nonsense in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and the liberalization from Pope Francis’ Papacy on the Church’s views of homosexuality.

Look how far we’ve come in the past 20 years.  In 2003 the CDF stated in Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

Quote:“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”


We have a DUTY to clearly and emphatically oppose the recognition and status of the homosexual unions.  That certainly didn't occur in the responsum.

Horan and Martin have nothing to worry about.  I am sure the same liberal forces pushing the Church further from her traditions and the teachings of Christ will resume advancing their position soon enough.  Cardinal Cupich is already calling for calm, reminding their side of the "encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ persons" and "recognizing, as the Congregation response does today, the many positive elements in same-sex relationships."

Well I read it and I in no way see what you are saying. Yes it's worded in the typical "Can't be too harsh cause someone's feee-wings might get huuuurt." but it in no way contradicts the 2003 CDF proclamation. This dubium asserts sin cannot be blessed and it doesn't mean that homosexuals are evil by their essence and that they should be treated charitable (remember what I said about feee-wings) but they are not calling for priests to "recognize" or be complicit with SS unions which is what the 2003 statement was about.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102
Reply
#27
(03-17-2021, 12:29 PM)DNJC.org Wrote: We have a DUTY to clearly and emphatically oppose the recognition and status of the homosexual unions.  That certainly didn't occur in the responsum.

Horan and Martin have nothing to worry about.  I am sure the same liberal forces pushing the Church further from her traditions and the teachings of Christ will resume advancing their position soon enough.  Cardinal Cupich is already calling for calm, reminding their side of the "encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ persons" and "recognizing, as the Congregation response does today, the many positive elements in same-sex relationships."

It's not like it matters, though, from the perspective that you're presenting. Cupich and Gregory and Horan and Martin and all the others were already ignoring the 2003 statement, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't ignore whatever comes out today.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#28
(03-17-2021, 01:15 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Well I read it and I in no way see what you are saying.  Yes it's worded in the typical "Can't be too harsh cause someone's feee-wings might get huuuurt." but it in no way contradicts the 2003 CDF proclamation.  This dubium asserts sin cannot be blessed and it doesn't mean that homosexuals are evil by their essence and that they should be treated charitable (remember what I said about feee-wings) but they are not calling for priests to "recognize" or be complicit with SS unions which is what the 2003 statement was about.

I think you would agree that under Pope Francis' Papacy the Church has taken a more welcoming tone towards homosexuals and homosexual unions, no?  That is a far cry from the context of the 2003 statement and previous positions of the Church earlier in our lifetimes.

Could you imagine prior to Pope Francis the CDF saying "positive elements" in homosexual relationships are "to be valued and appreciated"?

The proper pronouncement in the context of the 2003 statement would not only have been to respond negatively to the dubium, but to state unequivocally the Church doesn't even recognize such unions.  There should have been strong admonition of those in ecclesiastical circles advancing the recognition let alone suggesting a blessing.

The failure to clearly and emphatically state opposition to the recognition and status of the homosexual unions is in itself tacit recognition.
Reply
#29
(03-15-2021, 04:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I had to check Fr Martin's SJW tweets and he's clearly upset about it.  Hahaha!

I'll save an "Ave" for Pope Francis for this, just for making my day by p*ssing in that rotten heretic's cornflakes with truth.


(03-17-2021, 03:27 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-17-2021, 12:29 PM)DNJC.org Wrote: We have a DUTY to clearly and emphatically oppose the recognition and status of the homosexual unions.  That certainly didn't occur in the responsum.

Horan and Martin have nothing to worry about.  I am sure the same liberal forces pushing the Church further from her traditions and the teachings of Christ will resume advancing their position soon enough.  Cardinal Cupich is already calling for calm, reminding their side of the "encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ persons" and "recognizing, as the Congregation response does today, the many positive elements in same-sex relationships."

It's not like it matters, though, from the perspective that you're presenting.  Cupich and Gregory and Horan and Martin and all the others were already ignoring the 2003 statement, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't ignore whatever comes out today.

I am simply pointing out that Cupich and company lost nothing and the gloating as reference above is foolish.  I've seen many gleefully pointing to this responsum as a sign Pope Francis is backing away from what has been ascribed to him or has come to his senses, and that the liberal forces in the Church advancing the LGBTQ agenda are at last being admonished.  Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.
Reply
#30
(03-17-2021, 09:29 PM)DNJC.org Wrote: I think you would agree that under Pope Francis' Papacy the Church has taken a more welcoming tone towards homosexuals and homosexual unions, no?  That is a far cry from the context of the 2003 statement and previous positions of the Church earlier in our lifetimes.

Could you imagine prior to Pope Francis the CDF saying "positive elements" in homosexual relationships are "to be valued and appreciated"?

The proper pronouncement in the context of the 2003 statement would not only have been to respond negatively to the dubium, but to state unequivocally the Church doesn't even recognize such unions.  There should have been strong admonition of those in ecclesiastical circles advancing the recognition let alone suggesting a blessing.

The failure to clearly and emphatically state opposition to the recognition and status of the homosexual unions is in itself tacit recognition.

Perhaps you should have read the Commentary article on the dubia from the Vatican's website

Quote:As for unions of persons of the same sex, the response to the dubium “declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such”. The Explanatory Note bases the illicitness on three interconnected reasons.

The first reason arises from the truth and value of blessings. They belong to the genre of sacramentals, which are “liturgical actions of the Church” that require consonance of life with what they signify and generate. There are meanings and outcomes of grace that the Note explains in concise form. Consequently, a blessing on a human relationship requires that it be ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.

Thus we come to the second reason: the order that makes one fit to receive the gift is given by the “designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord”. These are designs to which “relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage” do not correspond, for they are “outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life.” However, not only these unions – as if the problem were only such unions – but any union that involves sexual activity outside of marriage, which is illicit from the moral point of view, according to the perennial teaching of the ecclesial Magisterium.

This all implies a power that the Church does not possess, because she does not have the power over God's designs, which would otherwise be rejected and denied. The Church is not the arbiter of these designs and the truths they express, but their faithful interpreter and witness.

The third reason is to avert an error into which one would easily be led: that of assimilating the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex to that of matrimonial unions. Because of the connection between blessings of persons and the sacraments, the blessing of such unions could in a sense imply “a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing”, imparted to a man and a woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony. This would be erroneous and misleading.

For the above reasons “the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit”. This statement in no way detracts from the human and Christian consideration in which the Church holds each person. So much so that the response to the dubium “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching”.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ni_en.html

It still condemns same-sex unions.  All that the responsum stated was that "homosexuals" (a term I reject but in the age of aggrionomento it is proper in this context to refer to people struggling with SSA as "homosexuals") are not incapable of receiving personal blessings and it has nothing to do with the "positive" elements...basically 2 guys can have a deep loving friendship...that's a positive, but if that starts going into let's play hide the salami...then it's a "negative"

Look you won't find a bitter critic of Francis than me...for crying out loud I'm in some ways a quasi-sedevacantist here, but you are being upset for the sake of being upset.  The Church spoke on the matter and it upheld the teaching of the Church...you are trying to find a problem where there isn't one because the CDF didn't speak in a "harsher" tone...but this is the same Vatican of Vatican 2...why would you expect a harsh tone?

You are running around calling people fools because a good thing happened.  Are you angry because the CDF didn't consult you on the verbiage? 

Seriously if this is how you react towards victory, I'd hate to see how you react towards defeat.



(03-17-2021, 09:38 PM)DNJC.org Wrote:
(03-17-2021, 03:27 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: It's not like it matters, though, from the perspective that you're presenting.  Cupich and Gregory and Horan and Martin and all the others were already ignoring the 2003 statement, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't ignore whatever comes out today.

I am simply pointing out that Cupich and company lost nothing and the gloating as reference above is foolish.  I've seen many gleefully pointing to this responsum as a sign Pope Francis is backing away from what has been ascribed to him or has come to his senses, and that the liberal forces in the Church advancing the LGBTQ agenda are at last being admonished.  Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Well Fr Martin who is the biggest closeted homo, tweet's certainly say something otherwise.

Also no one here is saying or acting like Francis is suddenly becoming an orthodox champion, we are saying that this was a good thing the Vatican did.

Good grief dude!
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Evangelium, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)